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

[Sören Brinkmann]

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.

	Thanks,
	Sören