Re: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: armada-37xx: Correct mpp definitions
From: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>
Date: 2018-12-24 17:05:29
Also in:
linux-gpio, lkml
Hi Marek, On sam., déc. 22 2018, Marek Behun [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:32:57 +0100 Gregory CLEMENT [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
+ PIN_GRP_GPIO("pcie1", 3, 1, BIT(5), "pcie"), + PIN_GRP_GPIO("pcie1_clkreq", 4, 1, BIT(9), "pcie"),If the pair is split to clkreq and reset, shouldn't the first be called pcie1_reset?
I considered this but chose to keep pcie1 in order to preserve backward compatibility. I agree that it is debatable, because without the fix the old device tree can't work. However I find it better preserving the initial intent of an existing device tree. By talking about it, I think about an other option, keeping pcie1 name to setup the pins 39 and 40 how it was documented. And introducing pcie1_reset and pcie1_clkreq for new binding. however I don't know how it could be handle by the pinctrl framework. Gregory
Marek
-- Gregory Clement, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel