From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] pinctrl: Add msm8x74 configuration Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 13:37:45 -0800 Message-ID: <52A63829.10509@codeaurora.org> References: <1386295805-13708-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <1386295805-13708-3-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <52A24E08.706@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , Rob Landley , Grant Likely , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 12/09/13 00:18, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 12/05/13 18:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > As the driver is merged I expect fixes to come in as additional patches. > >>> Add initial definition of parameters for pinctrl-msm for the msm8x74 >>> platform. >> Hmm. We've tried to remove 'x' from our code because it isn't really >> accurate and leads to more confusion. > So does this pin controller have a real name in the data sheet? We call it TLMM (top-level mode mux). So far there have been three major revisions of the hardware and 8974 uses the latest version. > > I usually prefer to name the drivers after the name of the IP > block rather than the SoC if possible. > > Or should it just be named pinctrl-msm.c? Leaving the pinctrl-msm.c file as in these patches is fine. For the SoC specific data files we should use the base chip name which in this case is 8974. I suppose the goal of pinctrl-msm8x74.c is to support 8974 and 8074 SoCs in the same file because they're almost exactly the same minus some pins losing their "modem" functions. Given that, the file names are fine but the binding and the data structures should be specific about which SoC we're talking about. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 13:37:45 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] pinctrl: Add msm8x74 configuration In-Reply-To: References: <1386295805-13708-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <1386295805-13708-3-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <52A24E08.706@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <52A63829.10509@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12/09/13 00:18, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 12/05/13 18:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > As the driver is merged I expect fixes to come in as additional patches. > >>> Add initial definition of parameters for pinctrl-msm for the msm8x74 >>> platform. >> Hmm. We've tried to remove 'x' from our code because it isn't really >> accurate and leads to more confusion. > So does this pin controller have a real name in the data sheet? We call it TLMM (top-level mode mux). So far there have been three major revisions of the hardware and 8974 uses the latest version. > > I usually prefer to name the drivers after the name of the IP > block rather than the SoC if possible. > > Or should it just be named pinctrl-msm.c? Leaving the pinctrl-msm.c file as in these patches is fine. For the SoC specific data files we should use the base chip name which in this case is 8974. I suppose the goal of pinctrl-msm8x74.c is to support 8974 and 8074 SoCs in the same file because they're almost exactly the same minus some pins losing their "modem" functions. Given that, the file names are fine but the binding and the data structures should be specific about which SoC we're talking about. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation