Re: [PATCH v2 24/28] pinctrl: Add support for the Lantic PEF2256 pinmux

[Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>]

Hi Linus,

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:05:15 +0200
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:

> Hi Herve,
> 
> thanks for your patch!
> 
> First: is this patch something we could merge separately? I don't see
> any dependency on the other patches.

It depends on pef2256:
in drivers/pinctrl/Kconfig:
--- 8< ---
+config PINCTRL_PEF2256
+	tristate "Lantiq PEF2256 (FALC56) pin controller driver"
+	depends on OF && FRAMER_PEF2256
--- 8< ---
in drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-pef2256.c
--- 8< ---
+#include <linux/framer/pef2256.h>
--- 8< ---

All the pef2256 it depends on is provided by
 path 23/28 "net: wan: framer: Add support for the Lantiq PEF2256 framer"

> 
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 5:04 PM Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Lantiq PEF2256 is a framer and line interface component designed to
> > fulfill all required interfacing between an analog E1/T1/J1 line and the
> > digital PCM system highway/H.100 bus.
> >
> > This pinmux support handles the pin muxing part (pins RP(A..D) and pins
> > XP(A..D)) of the PEF2256.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>  
> 
> So it is a bridge chip? Please use that terminology since Linux
> DRM often talks about bridges.
> 
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-pef2256-regs.h  
> (...)
> > +#include "linux/bitfield.h"  
> 
> Really? I don't think there is such a file there.
> 
> Do you mean <linux/bitfield.h> and does this even compile?

Yes and it compiles (even with quoted included file).
I will be changed to <linux/bitfield.h> in the next interation.

> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-pef2256.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-pef2256.c  
> (...)
> > +struct pef2256_pinctrl {
> > +       struct device *dev;
> > +       struct regmap *regmap;
> > +       enum pef2256_version version;
> > +       struct {
> > +               struct pinctrl_desc pctrl_desc;
> > +               const struct pef2256_function_desc *functions;
> > +               unsigned int nfunctions;
> > +       } pinctrl;  
> 
> Uh anonymous struct... can't you just define the struct separately
> with a name? Or fold it into struct pef2256_pinctrl without the
> additional struct? Thanks.

I will fold it into struct pef2256_pinctrl in the next iteration.

Thanks
Hervé

> 
> Otherwise it looks neat!
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij