Re: Suggestion regarding the ordering of GPIO MUX configurations

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Monday 02 March 2009, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> 
> > I wonder if we can sort the order of GPIO MUX configurations and then
> > insert new MUXs at right position. Can I ask your opinions?
> 
> Yes, I was thinking about the same. I'll combine the pending mux patches
> and merge them into a single patch for mainline tree. While doing that
> I'll sort them by gpio number. Will post the patch here for testing
> probably today.

Another thing to consider is eliminating the bugs that can
come from having the mux.c MUX_CFG_*() entries not match the
mux.h order; accidents happen.  The simplest fix changes

	MUX_CFG_X("string", ...)

		==> {
			.name = string,
			...
		},

to MUX_CFG_X(enum, ...)

		==> [enum] = {
			.name = #enum,
			...
		},

and adds a smidgeon of logic to verify a given mux table entry
has been initialized before using it.

- Dave