On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org wrote:
So to summarize there are two related areas of discussion here:
- Whether a pinmux map shall map one or 1..N functions
- How to handle per-driver instance namespacing of functions
In both cases I'm currently using simple strings and claiming that by namespacing these strings cleverly we can avoid complexity. So my answer to these are:
- Use several functions with ovelapping maps, just name
them differently 2. Use a string convention and namespace by using platform/machine/package data and string conventions such as a "::" separator
While I *think* (and DO correct me!) that you would argue:
- Make it possible to map several functions to a single
device map 2. Namespace device instances by different map field members referring to specific instances
Is this correctly understood, even if we may not agree?
I have now after being massaged by Grant changed opinion on (2) and each pin controller (e.g. pinmux) instance has it's struct device * or pinctrl_dev_name field in the mapping table, so I hope you will find that part solved in an acceptable way in the v4 patch set. So we'd solved 50% of our disagreements.
(Please verify!)
So remains (1). I hope you will ACK the patch set if I fix this also...
I'm thinking about good ways to solve it, reading through your old mails, new suggestions based on the new patch set are welcome.
Thanks, Linus Walleij