Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:18:33 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] pinctrl: Add msm8x74 configuration | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 12/05/13 18:10, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
As the driver is merged I expect fixes to come in as additional patches.
>> Add initial definition of parameters for pinctrl-msm for the msm8x74 >> platform. > > Hmm. We've tried to remove 'x' from our code because it isn't really > accurate and leads to more confusion.
So does this pin controller have a real name in the data sheet?
I usually prefer to name the drivers after the name of the IP block rather than the SoC if possible.
Or should it just be named pinctrl-msm.c?
>> +#define PINGROUP(id, f1, f2, f3, f4, f5, f6, f7) \ >> + { \ >> + .name = "gpio" #id, \ >> + .pins = gpio##id##_pins, \ >> + .npins = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio##id##_pins), \ >> + .funcs = { \ >> + MSM_MUX_NA, /* gpio mode */ \ >> + MSM_MUX_##f1, \ >> + MSM_MUX_##f2, \ >> + MSM_MUX_##f3, \ >> + MSM_MUX_##f4, \ >> + MSM_MUX_##f5, \ >> + MSM_MUX_##f6, \ >> + MSM_MUX_##f7 \ >> + }, \ >> + .ctl_reg = 0x1000 + 0x10 * id , \ > > Weird trailing space here.
Please send patches.
> Also, do we ever plan to have anything more than the gpio pins and the > sdc pins? It seems like we spend a lot of space describing exactly the > same thing in these structs for each of the 146 gpio pins when we could > just know that range 0 to 146 is gpio pins and have different code for > that part vs the 6 or something sd pins.
Some platforms use the .gpio_request_enable()/.gpio_disable_free() instead of one group per pin for this very reason.
>> +static struct of_device_id msm8x74_pinctrl_of_match[] = { > > const?
Please send patches.
>> +static int __init msm8x74_pinctrl_init(void) >> +{ >> + return platform_driver_register(&msm8x74_pinctrl_driver); >> +} >> +arch_initcall(msm8x74_pinctrl_init); >> + >> +static void __exit msm8x74_pinctrl_exit(void) >> +{ >> + platform_driver_unregister(&msm8x74_pinctrl_driver); >> +} >> +module_exit(msm8x74_pinctrl_exit); > > Why not module_platform_driver()? I thought pinctrl supported deferred > probing?
It does. Tested patches accepted.
Yours, Linus Walleij
|  |