From: jbrunet@baylibre.com (Jerome Brunet)
To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: meson: rework pinmux ops
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 15:25:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1507555507.16356.50.camel@baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7cd1b638-f31b-3d89-64b8-976a458f81d6@baylibre.com>
On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 13:42 +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > +/* Common pmx functions */
> > +int meson_pmx_get_funcs_count(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev);
> > +const char *meson_pmx_get_func_name(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev,
> > + unsigned selector);
> > +int meson_pmx_get_groups(struct pinctrl_dev *pcdev,
> > + unsigned selector,
> > + const char * const **groups,
> > + unsigned * const num_groups);
>
> Maybe the naming of the common functions should be changed to something
> generic
> like meson_get_functions_name and meson_get_function_groups and leave "pmx" to
> the
> first version pinmux control implementation.
> Same for the ops, meson_pinmux_ops would be better.
I was thinking that the naming convention around this might be confusing. Thx
for the confirmation !
However, I think "pmx" was intially meant to denote a pinmux function, since
pinconf, gpio and pinmux are all mixed in pinctrl-meson.c. I'd prefer to keep
this "pmx" for this reason.
Maybe the SoC specific bits should be named after the first SoC supporting it:
* files: pinctrl-meson-pmx.* => pinctrl-meson8-pmx.*
* functions: meson_pmx_* => meson8_pmx_*
What do you think ?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-09 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-09 10:17 [PATCH 0/2] pinctrl: meson: prepare for new SoC Jerome Brunet
2017-10-09 10:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: meson: separate soc drivers Jerome Brunet
2017-10-09 11:35 ` Neil Armstrong
2017-10-09 13:11 ` Jerome Brunet
2017-10-11 2:55 ` Yixun Lan
2017-10-12 6:09 ` kbuild test robot
2017-10-12 11:12 ` kbuild test robot
2017-10-09 10:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: meson: rework pinmux ops Jerome Brunet
2017-10-09 11:42 ` Neil Armstrong
2017-10-09 13:25 ` Jerome Brunet [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1507555507.16356.50.camel@baylibre.com \
--to=jbrunet@baylibre.com \
--cc=linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).