[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51C99581.2010403@imgtec.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:05:05 +0100
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090
Hi Heiko,
On 25/06/13 13:56, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> As the binding for slew-rate is under discussion and seems to need
> more tought it will get removed for now, so it doesn't get an offical
s/tought/thought/
s/offical/official/
> release.
>
> Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> ---
<snip>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
> index 12e4808..d4f12cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
> @@ -809,11 +809,6 @@ static int tz1090_pdc_pinconf_group_reg(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> *width = 1;
> *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map;
> break;
> - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE:
> - *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S;
> - *width = 1;
> - *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map;
> - break;
> case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
> *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S;
> *width = 2;
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
> index 02ff3a2..4edae08 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
> @@ -1834,11 +1834,6 @@ static int tz1090_pinconf_group_reg(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> *width = 1;
> *map = tz1090_boolean_map;
> break;
> - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE:
> - *reg = REG_PINCTRL_SR;
> - *width = 1;
> - *map = tz1090_boolean_map;
> - break;
> case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
> *reg = REG_PINCTRL_DR;
> *width = 2;
>
I don't see the harm in keeping the handling of PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE,
since PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE is still present and you only seem to be
removing the device tree bindings (which is the only important bit from
the DT ABI point of view).
Cheers
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists