Re: [PATCH 0/2] pinctrl: meson: use one uniform 'function' name

[Yixun Lan <yixun.lan@amlogic.com>]

On 01/08/18 16:52, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 15:33 +0800, Yixun Lan wrote:
>> These two patches are general improvement for meson pinctrl driver.
>> It make the two pinctrl trees (ee/ao) to share one uniform 'function' name for
>> one hardware block even its pin groups live inside two differet hardware domains,
>> which for example EE vs AO domain here.
>>
>> This idea is motivated by Martin's question at [1]
>>
>> [1]
>>  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAFBinCCuQ-NK747+GHDkhZty_UMMgzCYOYFcNTrRDJgU8OM=Gw@mail.gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Yixun Lan (2):
>>   pinctrl: meson: introduce a macro to have name/groups seperated
>>   pinctrl: meson-axg: correct the pin expansion of UART_AO_B
>>
>>  drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-meson-axg.c | 4 ++--
>>  drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-meson.h     | 8 +++++---
>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi Yixun,
> 
> Honestly, I don't like the idea. I think it adds an unnecessary complexity.
> I don't see the point of FUNCTION_EX(uart_ao_b, _z) when you could simply write 
> FUNCTION(uart_ao_b_z) ... especially when there is just a couple of function per
> SoC available on different domains.
> 
> A pinctrl driver can already be challenging to understand at first, let's keep
> it simple and avoid adding more macros.
> 

Hi Jerome：
  In my opinion, the idea of keeping one uniform 'function' in DT (thus
introducing another macro) is worth considering. It would make the DT
part much clean.
  And yes, it's a trade-off here, either we 1) do more in code to make
DT clean or 2) do nothing in the code level to make DT live with it.

Yixun