[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb+9DE6WNfBSp9Y8ErhHjaE-PdezJbYvsLLhiCjXfmA-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:18:33 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] pinctrl: Add msm8x74 configuration
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/13 18:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
As the driver is merged I expect fixes to come in as additional patches.
>> Add initial definition of parameters for pinctrl-msm for the msm8x74
>> platform.
>
> Hmm. We've tried to remove 'x' from our code because it isn't really
> accurate and leads to more confusion.
So does this pin controller have a real name in the data sheet?
I usually prefer to name the drivers after the name of the IP
block rather than the SoC if possible.
Or should it just be named pinctrl-msm.c?
>> +#define PINGROUP(id, f1, f2, f3, f4, f5, f6, f7) \
>> + { \
>> + .name = "gpio" #id, \
>> + .pins = gpio##id##_pins, \
>> + .npins = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio##id##_pins), \
>> + .funcs = { \
>> + MSM_MUX_NA, /* gpio mode */ \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f1, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f2, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f3, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f4, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f5, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f6, \
>> + MSM_MUX_##f7 \
>> + }, \
>> + .ctl_reg = 0x1000 + 0x10 * id , \
>
> Weird trailing space here.
Please send patches.
> Also, do we ever plan to have anything more than the gpio pins and the
> sdc pins? It seems like we spend a lot of space describing exactly the
> same thing in these structs for each of the 146 gpio pins when we could
> just know that range 0 to 146 is gpio pins and have different code for
> that part vs the 6 or something sd pins.
Some platforms use the .gpio_request_enable()/.gpio_disable_free()
instead of one group per pin for this very reason.
>> +static struct of_device_id msm8x74_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
>
> const?
Please send patches.
>> +static int __init msm8x74_pinctrl_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&msm8x74_pinctrl_driver);
>> +}
>> +arch_initcall(msm8x74_pinctrl_init);
>> +
>> +static void __exit msm8x74_pinctrl_exit(void)
>> +{
>> + platform_driver_unregister(&msm8x74_pinctrl_driver);
>> +}
>> +module_exit(msm8x74_pinctrl_exit);
>
> Why not module_platform_driver()? I thought pinctrl supported deferred
> probing?
It does. Tested patches accepted.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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