Re: Pinmux bindings proposal

[Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:21:30AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Shawn Guo wrote at Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:24 AM:
...
> > Considering the different pinctrl configurations for the same client
> > device usually share the same pinmux and only pinconf varies.  It may
> > worth introducing another level phandle reference.  Something like
> > the following:
> 
> I don't think there's a need for another level of indirection. The 1:n
> model I was talking about already handles this, I believe. See below.
> 
Yes, agreed.

...

> > This will be pretty useful for imx6 usdhc case, which will have 3
> > pinctrl configuration for each usdhc device (imx6 has 4 usdhc devices),
> > pinctrl-50mhz, pinctrl-100mhz and pinctrl-200mhz.  All these 3 states
> > have the exactly same pinmux settings, and only varies on pinconf.
> 
> Yes, I definitely agree there's a need for this.
> 
> As an aside, I wonder if the following would be any better:
> 
It does look better to me.

Regards,
Shawn

> sdhci@c8000200 {
>     ...
>     pinctrl = <&pinmux_sdhci> <&pinconf_sdhci_active>
>               <&pinmux_sdhci> <&pinconf_sdhci_suspend>;
>     /* Number of entries in pinctrl for each in pinctrl-names */
>     pinctrl-entries = <2 2>;
>     pinctrl-names = "active", "suspend";
> };
> 
> That seems more complex though.
>