On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 10:53 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sascha Hauer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

You often talk about ambiguities. Could you give an example what
ambiguities you mean?

What happened was this pins = ; arguments were sometimes
strings and sometimes integers, that becomes strange to handle
in code, ambiguous.

I see. I like naming it 'pinmux' because that's what it is: pins and
mux settings. A plain 'pinno' suggests that it contains only pin mubers,
without mux setting. How about 'pin-no-mux'? We also could add an
explicit "pins-are-numbered" property instead of distinguishing this
by property names.

I kind of like this "pins-are-numbered" thing.

The other property for the pin, whether pinmux or pin-no-mux or
pin-num-and-mux etc is no such big deal, as long as it's
consistent and documented with the generic bindings.

Hi Linus,

To make sure I understand it correct, you think something like this is
OK?

	pinctrl at 01c20800 {
		compatible = "mediatek,mt8135-pinctrl";
[...]
		pins-are-numbered;

		i2c0_pins_a: i2c0 at 0 {
			pins1 {
				pins = <MT8135_PIN_100_SDA0__FUNC_SDA0>,
					<MT8135_PIN_101_SCL0__FUNC_SCL0>;
				bias-disable;
			};
		};
[....]
	}

Joe.C