[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1471049894.12231.41.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:58:14 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] pinctrl: Add core pinctrl support for Aspeed SoCs
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 15:18 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> I would probably prefer that option (introduce another field)
> but you should make the overall decision, it's no strong opinion
> from my side.
>
> > Would it be acceptable to document that requirement?
It might make it a bit less nasty (and easier to change later on
if necessary) to use some kind of:
bool ast_signal_is_gpio(...)
And stick the strcmp in there.
Cheers,
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists