From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:10:39 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] pinctrl: clarify some dt pinconfig options In-Reply-To: <201306141742.49923.heiko@sntech.de> References: <201306141741.46077.heiko@sntech.de> <201306141742.49923.heiko@sntech.de> Message-ID: <51C22C5F.5020402@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/14/2013 09:42 AM, Heiko St?bner wrote: > The bias-pull-* options use values > 0 to indicate that the pull should > be activated and optionally also indicate the strength of the pull. > Therefore use an default value of 1 for these options. > > Split the low-power-mode option into low-power-enable and -disable. > > Update the documentation to describe the param arguments better. > > Wrong default options > Reported-by: James Hogan > That blank line should be before the Reported-by not after it. > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt > -low-power-mode - low power mode > +low-power-enable - enable low power mode > +low-power-disable - disable low power mode Hmmm. That's changing the binding definition. What if somebody already wrote their device tree according previous definition? It seems to be that tri-states are preferable for pinctrl DT: no entry: do nothing = 0: disable = 1: enable > +Arguments for parameters: > + > +- bias-pull-up, -down and -pin-default take as optional argument 0 to disable > + the pull, on hardware supporting it the pull strength in Ohm. bias-disable > + will also disable any active pull. Does this agree with the latest definition of the kernel-internal meaning of 0 for pull-up/down? > +- input-schmitt takes as argument the adjustable hysteresis in a > + driver-specific format > + > +- input-debounce takes the debounce time as argument or 0 to disable debouncing > + > +- power-source argument is the custom value describing the source to select > + > +- slew-rate takes as argument the target rate in a driver-specific format If those things have driver-specific (note: should be DT-binding-specific, not driver-specific) values, then I'm not convinced that having a generic parameter name for them is a good idea; it makes things look the same when they aren't. By forcing each binding to include the vendor prefix on those properties and hence define a custom property name, you're making it clear that the semantics may be different.