On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:02:13AM +0200, Jorik Jonker wrote:
>> So, I'm going for a v5, with these changes:
>> - rename uart0_pins to uart0_pa_pins (as there could be a pf)
>> - associate uart0_pa_pins with uart0 on all H3 board DTS files
>
>Please don't. We use that naming scheme everywhere else. Plus, nothing
>prevents any one from using one PF pin and one PA pin.

OK, I will leave uart0 untouched, that's a good point.

>> - put rts/cts in seperate pinmux sets for uart1 (2,3: see below)
>> - associate rx/tx for uart1-3 in H3 DTSI (this is the only option)
>
>I'm still a bit skeptical about this. This wouldn't be in any way
>consistant. I prefer to have something consistant and a bit duplicated
>over something without any duplication but that confuses everyone
>about what should be placed where.
>
>> - associate UART1 rts/cts as pinctrl-1 in sun8i-h3-bananapi-m2-plus
>>  (to prevent breakage for existing users)
>
>You can also set it in pinctrl-0.

OK, sounds reasonable, but also a bit contradictive. One the one hand 
you prefer consistency (so, let uart2-3 follow uart1 and include rts/cts 
in them), on the other hand the common case over the rare (so split off 
rts/cts). What should I do with uarts2-3 and should I do that to uart1 
too?

Moreover, Chen-Yu prefers to drop _a and @0 when they are redundant, 
which does not appear to be the convention, looking at existing 
sun*dsti. What's your opinion on this?

Best,
Jorik