From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 04:15:12 +0000 Subject: [RFC] DT-based pinmux configuration for Renesas platforms (was: [PATCH v2 01/15] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Ad Message-Id: <2259197.0WD3Y1GXGT@avalon> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hi Geert, On Tuesday 05 May 2015 11:07:20 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulrich, > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Ulrich Hecht > > wrote: > > Part of PFC support for R-Car M2-N (r8a7793) that defines the pinmux > > data. > > As this patch is difficult to quote, I'm just summarizing my comments: > - Other R-Car Gen2 variants use "MLB_CLK" instead of "MLB_CK", > - Compared to M2-W, CAN0/1, HSCIF2_D, and MLB+ are missing, > but they do exist on M2-N, > - Compared to M2-W, SSP is added, but it does exist on M2-W. > > After compensating for that, pfc-r8a7793.c is identical to pfc-r8a7791.c. > So I think we should use a single file for both, or at least share (most of) > the data structures (sh_pfc_soc_info contains the SoC name, so it can't > be shared). I agree with that, and I'd even go further : I think we won't be able to scale much further with our large in-kernel tables. We currently have around 150kB or PFC .rodata when enabling all Renesas platforms, which is far from being negligible in a multiplatform build. I could be time to reconsider the approach and specify data in DT. > BTW, it's my understanding M2-W and M2-N are identical, except for the > wide/double vs. narrow/single memory channels, which doesn't impact > configurable pins. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Are there other differences? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart