[PATCH v2 1/9] pinctrl: mvebu: pinctrl driver core

[sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth)]

On 08/23/2012 07:54 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> dt_parse() and dt_parse_function() build up structs that get used later on
>> in mvebu_pinmux_ops that require indexed functions. I can join them with
>> dt_node_to_map() but that would require incremental kzalloc for the
>> corresponding array. Or I could (functionally) leave dt_parse() to allocate
>> the array and only join dt_parse_function() with dt_node_to_map().
>
> So everything you said makes sense, in that the core driver is
> parameterizable and receives data from a SoC-variant-specific driver
> indicating which pins/groups/functions are available. I'm still not sure
> though why the translation of the pin/group/function structures passed
> to probe into other data structures requires accessing the DT at all;
> the set of available pins/groups/functions isn't configured through DT,
> and doesn't need to be limited to only those options actually used in
> DT, so can't you just process all the data that's passed to probe
> without interaction with the DT?

Hmm, maybe I still don't quite understand the terminology of pinctrl/pinmux
core completely. What exactly should mvebu_pinmux_get_funcs_count return
if not the number of DT node children?

I thought that a "function" in the terminology of pinctrl/pinmux core is
a list of pingroups and corresponding values to actually set it to e.g. uart1.
In pinctrl-mvebu this would be one marvell,function assigned to one or more
marvell,pins.

If the above is correct, I still need to access DT in probe() at least to count
the number of children passed to allocate an array for mvebu_pinmux_ops callbacks
that get indexed by "fid" (pctl->functions).

Sebastian