[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEzqOZta65UBJPBrp_4xr=SzHU98dWDucwzVb80eKE9ChJ8jpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 12:48:02 +0800
From: Vishnu Patekar <vishnupatekar0510@...il.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Jon Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Paweł Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Emilio Lopez <emilio@...pez.com.ar>,
Jens Kuske <jenskuske@...il.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Reinder de Haan <patchesrdh@...as.com>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] pinctrl: sunxi: Add A83T R_PIO controller support
Hello Linus,
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Vishnu Patekar
> <vishnupatekar0510@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> The A83T has R_PIO pin controller, it's same as A23, execpt A83T
>> interrupt bit is 6th and A83T has one extra pin PL12.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vishnu Patekar <vishnupatekar0510@...il.com>
>> Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>
> As partly noted by others:
>
>> +config PINCTRL_SUN8I_A83T_R
>> + def_bool MACH_SUN8I
>
> bool
>
>> + depends on RESET_CONTROLLER
>
> Should it rather select RESET_CONTROLLER?
I used depends on and def_bool as it is used for other sunxi pinctrl drivers.
Using bool and select will not harm anything.
Should I change it to bool and select ? or keep it to be uniform with
earlier options?
>
>> +static const struct of_device_id sun8i_a83t_r_pinctrl_match[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t-r-pinctrl", },
>> + {}
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sun8i_a83t_r_pinctrl_match);
>
> Module talk in bool driver.
I'll remove it.
>
>> +static struct platform_driver sun8i_a83t_r_pinctrl_driver = {
>> + .probe = sun8i_a83t_r_pinctrl_probe,
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "sun8i-a83t-r-pinctrl",
>> + .of_match_table = sun8i_a83t_r_pinctrl_match,
>> + },
>> +};
>> +module_platform_driver(sun8i_a83t_r_pinctrl_driver);
>
> Should be builtin?
Yes, It should be. I missed Maxime's earlier commets.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists