[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220708194510.ufwsj5sqvs42zk4c@soft-dev3-1.localhost>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 21:45:10 +0200
From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
CC: <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
<colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
<kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Fix pincfg for lan966x
The 07/08/2022 10:27, Michael Walle wrote:
Hi Walle,
>
> > -static struct pinctrl_desc luton_desc = {
> > - .name = "luton-pinctrl",
> > - .pins = luton_pins,
> > - .npins = ARRAY_SIZE(luton_pins),
> > - .pctlops = &ocelot_pctl_ops,
> > - .pmxops = &ocelot_pmx_ops,
> > - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +static struct ocelot_match_data luton_desc = {
> > + {
> .desc = {
>
> Same for all the structs.
Yes, I will do that.
> Also it looks like it is way too big
> for a stable backport:
> "It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context."
Don't you think it is a little bit silly to apply that rule to this
patch. In the way that 70% of the patch is just indentation.
>
> > + .name = "luton-pinctrl",
> > + .pins = luton_pins,
> > + .npins = ARRAY_SIZE(luton_pins),
> > + .pctlops = &ocelot_pctl_ops,
> > + .pmxops = &ocelot_pmx_ops,
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > + }
> > };
>
> -michael
--
/Horatiu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists