RE: Pinmux bindings proposal V2

[Stephen Warren]

Tony Lindgren wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:21 PM:
> * Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [120126 09:11]:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 1. It doesn't seem to make full use of the device tree format. For example,
> >
> >    <TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5>
> >
> > would be better as something like
> >
> >     drive-strength = <5>;
> >
> > if we could arrange it. It also reduces the need for these
> > TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH defines.
> 
> I agree. This is something that most pinmux/pinconf drivers need to
> implement, so it's best done in a generic way.

Yet:

* Some controllers don't have a "drive strength" property
* Others have a single "drive strength" property
* Others configure drive strength separately for driving a signal high
or low.

Hence, representing this in a generic fashion doesn't seem possible to
me, except through (key, value) pairs where the individual drivers or
bindings define what the keys are.

-- 
nvpublic

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/