[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251105115535.GN2912318@black.igk.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 12:55:35 +0100
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/10] pinctrl: alderlake: Switch to INTEL_GPP() macro
On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:51:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:50 PM Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:40:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > Replace custom macro with the recently defined INTEL_GPP().
>
> ...
>
> > > > > -#define ADL_GPP(r, s, e, g) \
> > > > > - { \
> > > > > - .reg_num = (r), \
> > > > > - .base = (s), \
> > > > > - .size = ((e) - (s) + 1), \
> > > > > - .gpio_base = (g), \
> > > > > - }
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if simply doing this:
> > > >
> > > > #define ADL_GPP(r, s, e, g) INTEL_GPP(r, s, e, g)
> > >
> > > We can, but it will give a couple of lines in each driver still be left.
> > > Do you think it's better?
> >
> > I think that's better because it is less changed lines but I'm fine either
> > way.
>
> Okay, I will try it and see how it looks like and then I'll either
> send a v2 or ask for a tag for this one. Sounds good?
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists