Re: [RFC v1 0/4] generic pinmux dt_node_to_map implementation

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --]

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 10:23:16PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 11:58 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Whipped this up last week, at to a first glance it appears to work,
> > although the spacemit platform I've used to implement this has very
> > limited in-tree use of pinctrl so it is hard to be sure.
> 
> I like it, if it wasn't RFC I would merge it.

Half the reason that it is RFC is that I knew dlan wanted to take a look
but told me they weren't available, so I said I'd send it on the list in
the interim.

> > What I don't love though is how similar the functions
> > pinctrl_generic_pins_function_dt_node_to_map() and
> > pinctrl_generic_pinmux_dt_node_to_map() are - essentially identical
> > other than which function they in turn call.
> 
> Hm we can maybe think of something more descriptive
> to the first one?

I think the name is actually okay, it was the similarity of the code
that I don't like. There's a fair bit of duplication.

> I think the new function is very much to the point. That's what
> it does. pinctrl_generic_pins_function_dt_node_to_map() could
> perhaps be names something that make it evident what is
> special about it. Not that I have a good idea.
> 
> > Basically, I wanna know if you think that that is acceptable,
> 
> Looks Good To Me (TM) no-one else is helping out with pin
> control core work so I'm happy for everything I get.

Right, well I'll go clean it up I suppose. I might send a rfc v2 with an
extra patch that tries to get rid of some of the code duplication and
you can tell me which version you prefer?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]