From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add RZ/A1 bindings doc Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:54:50 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1491401247-7030-1-git-send-email-jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> <1491401247-7030-4-git-send-email-jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org> <20170410181215.e6cihbv2rfljbm3b@rob-hp-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170410181215.e6cihbv2rfljbm3b@rob-hp-laptop> Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Jacopo Mondi , Geert Uytterhoeven , Laurent Pinchart , Chris Brandt , Mark Rutland , Russell King , Linux-Renesas , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 04:07:21PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: >> + The allowed generic formats for a pin multiplexing sub-node are the >> + following ones: >> + >> + node-1 { >> + pinmux = , , ... ; >> + GENERIC_PINCONFIG; > > What's GENERIC_PINCONFIG? I see this in some other binding docs, but not > used anywhere. If this is a boolean property then get rid of the all > caps. If this is a define, then don't use complex defines that expand to > dts source. I guess it is a wildcard for everything under the heading in "Generic pin configuration node content" in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt I'm all for documenting it properly. It's kind of useful, but I don't know the recent ambtions about being formal with DT bindings. The GPIO bindings are just over the top with BNF notation in its formalism. Dunno what is best here :/ Yours, Linus Walleij