Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090

["Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>]

Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013, 15:05:05 schrieb James Hogan:
> Hi Heiko,
> 
> On 25/06/13 13:56, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > As the binding for slew-rate is under discussion and seems to need
> > more tought it will get removed for now, so it doesn't get an offical
> 
> s/tought/thought/
> s/offical/official/
> 
> > release.
> > 
> > Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
> > ---
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
> > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c index 12e4808..d4f12cc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c
> > @@ -809,11 +809,6 @@ static int tz1090_pdc_pinconf_group_reg(struct
> > pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> > 
> >  		*width = 1;
> >  		*map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map;
> >  		break;
> > 
> > -	case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE:
> > -		*shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S;
> > -		*width = 1;
> > -		*map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map;
> > -		break;
> > 
> >  	case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
> >  		*shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S;
> >  		*width = 2;
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
> > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c index 02ff3a2..4edae08 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c
> > @@ -1834,11 +1834,6 @@ static int tz1090_pinconf_group_reg(struct
> > pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> > 
> >  		*width = 1;
> >  		*map = tz1090_boolean_map;
> >  		break;
> > 
> > -	case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE:
> > -		*reg = REG_PINCTRL_SR;
> > -		*width = 1;
> > -		*map = tz1090_boolean_map;
> > -		break;
> > 
> >  	case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
> >  		*reg = REG_PINCTRL_DR;
> >  		*width = 2;
> 
> I don't see the harm in keeping the handling of PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE,
> since PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE is still present and you only seem to be
> removing the device tree bindings (which is the only important bit from
> the DT ABI point of view).

I'm partial to this :-)

My thoughts were that this code would never be reached when the parsing was 
removed and to not cause confusion to the driver when an acceptable binding 
was found for slew-rate.

But it of course also doesn't hurt to stay in.


Heiko