From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko =?utf-8?q?St=C3=BCbner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:21:55 +0200 Message-ID: <201306251521.55634.heiko@sntech.de> References: <201306251455.01540.heiko@sntech.de> <201306251456.36499.heiko@sntech.de> <51C99581.2010403@imgtec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51C99581.2010403@imgtec.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Hogan Cc: Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Grant Likely , Rob Herring List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013, 15:05:05 schrieb James Hogan: > Hi Heiko, >=20 > On 25/06/13 13:56, Heiko St=C3=BCbner 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 offic= al >=20 > s/tought/thought/ > s/offical/official/ >=20 > > release. > >=20 > > Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner > > --- >=20 > >=20 > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c > > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c index 12e4808..d4f12cc 10064= 4 > > --- 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, > >=20 > > *width =3D 1; > > *map =3D tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > > break; > >=20 > > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > > - *shift =3D REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S; > > - *width =3D 1; > > - *map =3D tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > > - break; > >=20 > > case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: > > *shift =3D REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S; > > *width =3D 2; > >=20 > > 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, > >=20 > > *width =3D 1; > > *map =3D tz1090_boolean_map; > > break; > >=20 > > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > > - *reg =3D REG_PINCTRL_SR; > > - *width =3D 1; > > - *map =3D tz1090_boolean_map; > > - break; > >=20 > > case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: > > *reg =3D REG_PINCTRL_DR; > > *width =3D 2; >=20 > 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 fr= om > 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=20 removed and to not cause confusion to the driver when an acceptable bin= ding=20 was found for slew-rate. But it of course also doesn't hurt to stay in. Heiko