Tony Lindgren wrote at Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:13 AM:

* Grant Likely [off-list ref] [120116 09:55]:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:39:42PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

                pinmux =
                        <"default" &pmx_sdhci_active>
                        <"suspend" &pmx_sdhci_suspend>;

                /* 1:n example: */
                pinmux =
                        <"default" &pmx_sdhci_mux_a>
                        <"default" &pmx_sdhci_pincfg_a>
                        <"suspend" &pmx_sdhci_mux_a>
                        <"suspend" &pmx_sdhci_pincfg_a_suspend>;

Yeah, don't do this.  Mixing phandle, string and cell values in a
property gets messy and could become troublesome to parse.  I've
backed away from it in the clk binding.

Yup, that's because the string is embedded directly into the mixed
mode array and will likely make the following data unaligned. That
means it's extremely flakey to parse, and will lead into horrible
errors if you have typos in the .dts file.. Tried that and gave up
on it.

I think I've found a way to avoid using names at all, assuming we set
each pin as a phandle for the drivers to use :)

I'd prefer not to do that for my platforms, for the reason Shawn points
out in his reply to yours.

However, I believe the bindings I proposed are flexible enough to allow
you to do exactly this for your platforms without requiring that everyone
do it.

Recall my proposal was:

pmx_sdhci_standby: pinctrl at 0 {
    /* Format is <&pmx_controller_phandle muxable_entity_id
     * selected_function>.
     */
    mux =
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_MUX_1>
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_MUX_1>;
    config =
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1>
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_TRISTATE 1>
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5>
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_DRIVE_STRENGTH 5>
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTA TEGRA_PMX_CONF_SLEW_RATE 4>
        <&tegra_pmx TEGRA_PMX_PG_DTD TEGRA_PMX_CONF_SLEW_RATE 8>;
};

(Note that I think we've agreed to remove the first cell above, &tegra_pmx,
now by requiring such nodes exist as children of the pin controller.)

My assertion is that the common pinmux bindings define that the
Interpretation of muxable_entity_id is left up to the binding of the
specific pin controller. Hence, I can says "it's an integer, and here
is the list of valid values and what they mean", and you can say "it's
a phandle, which must refer to one of the per-pin nodes defined by the
pin controller".

Does that work for you?

-- 
nvpublic