From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753528Ab2A3CTo (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:19:44 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:43873 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752368Ab2A3CTn (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:19:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:31:50 +0800 From: Shawn Guo To: Stephen Warren Cc: Simon Glass , Dong Aisheng-B29396 , "Linus Walleij (linus.walleij@linaro.org)" , "Sascha Hauer (s.hauer@pengutronix.de)" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "cjb@laptop.org" , Dong Aisheng , Thomas Abraham , Tony Lindgren , "Grant Likely (grant.likely@secretlab.ca)" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: Pinmux bindings proposal V2 Message-ID: <20120130023148.GC10470@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF1780DAB4CE@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF178E123E54@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF178E123E54@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:29:50AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: > Simon Glass wrote at Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:42 AM: ... > > 1. It doesn't seem to make full use of the device tree format. For example, > > > > > > > > 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. > > Yes I can see the argument this is more readable. > > However, it: > > * Requires a lot of string handling when parsing the device tree, since > you have to search for lots of individual properties by name. > > * Bloats the device tree quite a bit due to representing each parameter > as a separate property, with a longish name, rather than a single u32 > cell in the config property I proposed. > It bloats device tree more due to the proposal needs to represent every single muxable entity (pin for imx case) as a node to accommodate the properties like 'drive-strength' here. -- Regards, Shawn