From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:58:32 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 13/14] arm: at91: dt: at91sam9 add nand pinctrl support In-Reply-To: References: <20120810124820.GA20557@game.jcrosoft.org> <1344603731-32667-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <1344603731-32667-13-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <20120816173844.GC7439@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: <20120820075832.GE7439@game.jcrosoft.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08:53 Fri 17 Aug , Richard Genoud wrote: > 2012/8/16 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD : > >> Maybe it will be more readable if we use something like : > >> atmel,pull-up; > >> atmel,multidrive; > >> atmel,mux="GPIO" > >> atmel,mux="A" > >> ... > >> just my 2 cents... > > no too much data and too much node as you will need a node per pin which we > > tyr to avoid > > One one hand we've got a DTS quite concise but unreadable, and on the > other hand, something understandable but huge. > ( and it's not specific to your patch Jean-Christophe, on imx6q.dtsi, > it looks worse ) > I'm just trying to make sure that having a DTS like that : > nand { > pinctrl_nand: nand-0 { > atmel,pins = > <2 13 0x0 0x1 /* PC13 gpio RDY pin pull_up */ > 2 14 0x0 0x1>; /* PC14 gpio enable pin pull_up */ > }; > }; > is better than : > nand { > pinctrl_nand: nand-0 { > nand_rdy { atmel,bank = "C"; atmel,pin = <13>; atmel,mux = "GPIO"; > atmel,pull-up; }; > nand_ena { atmel,bank = "C"; atmel,pin = <14>; atmel,mux = "GPIO"; > atmel,pull-up; }; > }; > }; > It's what you did in 1st place on linux-at91 git, and I kinda liked it. > But yeah, it's more verbose, and some lines will go beyond 80 columns, > but that's already the case. but as I explain you the DT must not have 1000s of not which we will have if we do this. that's why I drop it and soon we will have macro in DT so this will be more readable Best Regards, J.