Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: armada-37xx: Correct mpp definitions

From: Gregory CLEMENT <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 18:05:15 +0100

Hi Marek,
 
 On sam., déc. 22 2018, Marek Behun <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:32:57 +0100
> Gregory CLEMENT <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> +	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
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel