[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVzltQByY1Z0pOGI@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:15:33 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [rft, PATCH v1 1/1] pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: Remove unused
member in struct lpi_pingroup
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 08:14:09AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 20:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The group is not used anywhere, remove it. And if needed, it should be
> > struct pingroup anyway.
> >
> > While at it, replace kernel.h with what exactly being used.
>
> Missing Reported-by and Closes by for LKP... Unless you discovered it
> without its report?
It's just at hand discovery.
> Missing sm8550.
And sm8650, but there LPI_FUNCTION(gpio) and I'm wondering why LKP complains
about it. It's really a maze to me.
> > #define LPI_PINGROUP(id, soff, f1, f2, f3, f4) \
> > { \
> > - .group.name = "gpio" #id, \
> > - .group.pins = gpio##id##_pins, \
>
> Aren't these used by core pinctrl code?
Only via APIs and pin control registered them also via APIs, so I don't think
this is being used directly. But if you see how, tell me! I spent already a few
hours on this and haven't got any clear picture in my mind.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists