RE: Pinmux bindings proposal V2

Tony Lindgren wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:21 PM:

* Simon Glass [off-list ref] [120126 09:11]:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Stephen Warren [off-list ref] 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