[PATCH 3/7] pinctrl: pinconf-generic: Allow driver to specify DT params

[Ivan T. Ivanov]

On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 09:25 -0800, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 10:50AM +0200, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 15:53 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Soren Brinkmann
> > > brinkmann at xilinx.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Additionally to the generic DT parameters, allow drivers to 
> > > > provide driver-specific DT parameters to be used with the 
> > > > generic parser infrastructure.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann brinkmann at xilinx.com>
> > > 
> > > I like the looks of this, but the patch description is a bit 
> > > terse. I'd like it to describe some of the refactorings being 
> > > done
> > > to the intrinsics, because I have a hard time following the 
> > > patch.
> > > 
> > > First please rebase onto the "devel" branch in the pin control 
> > > tree, and notice that drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c 
> > > which is merged there is actually doing this already:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >         for_each_child_of_node(np_config, np) {
> > >                 ret = pinconf_generic_dt_subnode_to_map(pctldev, 
> > > np, map,
> > >                                                         &reserv, 
> > > nmaps, type);
> > >                 if (ret)
> > >                         break;
> > > 
> > >                 ret = pmic_gpio_dt_subnode_to_map(pctldev, np, 
> > > map, &reserv,
> > >                                                   nmaps, type);
> > >                 if (ret)
> > >                         break;
> > >         }
> > > 
> > > So it should be patched to illustrate the point of this code.
> > > 
> > 
> > I like the idea, but have issues with implementations :-).
> >  
> > It is supposed that additional parameters are not generic,
> > otherwise they will be part of enum pin_config_param, right?
> > 
> > Probably it will be better if clients could pass array with
> > driver specific dt bindings to pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map()?
> 
> My idea was to hide that API from the driver. You just pass those 
> parameters as part of the struct pctldev and the parser - whether 
> this generic one or anything else - would do the right thing. I 
> don't think calling the parser from the driver is the right approach.

Drivers already know about dt_node_to_map(). My proposal will make
drivers, which register non-standard bindings, little bit simpler.

With your approach probably we can remove dt_node_to_map() and
dt_free_map() callbacks?

Regards,
Ivan