[Linux-stm32] [PATCH 07/22] ARM: dts: stm32: Add alternate pinmux for SDMMC2 pins 4-7
Ahmad Fatoum
a.fatoum at pengutronix.de
Mon Mar 30 11:37:44 UTC 2020
Hi Marek,
On 3/30/20 1:22 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 3/30/20 1:17 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Hello Patrice,
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 3/30/20 1:11 PM, Patrice CHOTARD wrote:
>>> For your information, another submitted patch uses the same pinctrl sdmmc2_d47_pins_b node with different muxing (SDMMC2_D5)
>>>
>>> see https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1216452/
>>>
>>> I haven't checked other muxing if there are other conflict.
>>
>> (author of linked patch here)
>>
>> I don't like the central stm32mp15-pinctrl.dtsi. I'd have preferred if each
>> file defined the pinctrl groups it is using.
>
> I'm not a big fan of that either, because this is gonna be a
> combinatorial explosion of various pinmux options. But if you have each
> board define it's pinmux, it's also gonna become a massive amount of
> duplication (like iMX). So I cannot tell which one is better ...
Mhm. A middle ground could be keeping stm32mp15-pinctrl, but only for the
official ST eval kits as HW designers are expected to copy off those and have
board specifics in the board/SoM device tree?
If it has to be either one or the other, I prefer duplication in the device
tree. When the HW misses pull ups or needs to adjust slew rates, you probably
don't want a new, slightly different, pinctrl group in the stm32mp15-pinctrl.dtsi
for each variant.
So you are left with doctoring around with overrides and /delete-property/,
while just duplicating the node with the correct properties would've been
better for readability IMO.
> So, just apply one patch or the other, let me know what got applied and
> I'll rebase on top of that and resubmit if needed.
Same.
Cheers
Ahmad
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
More information about the Linux-stm32
mailing list