From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:40:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 10/12] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Remove all GPIOs Message-Id: <2142198.kb1Anh2P5F@avalon> List-Id: References: <1362941928-18115-11-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> In-Reply-To: <1362941928-18115-11-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hi Simon, On Thursday 28 March 2013 09:23:17 Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:30:49PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > All code use the GPIO numbers directly. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart > > > > > > --- > > > > Thanks for your work on this. I am late to the party as usual. > > > > I am in general happy with the changes that you are making to convert > > from old function and I/O GPIOs to using PINCTRL and GPIOS separately. > > However, I have one comment related to this patch. I think you should > > keep these patches as is, but I hope you can make an incremental fix, > > please see my proposal below. > > I was perhaps a little hasty, but I have queued-up this patch already. > So I would also prefer an incremental change if there are any changes > to be made. Sure. I've already sent incremental patches as "sh-pfc: r8a7779: Improve readability with a new macro". > > [snip] > > > > > - GPIO_GP_3_0, GPIO_GP_3_1, GPIO_GP_3_2, GPIO_GP_3_3, > > > - GPIO_GP_3_4, GPIO_GP_3_5, GPIO_GP_3_6, GPIO_GP_3_7, > > > - GPIO_GP_3_8, GPIO_GP_3_9, GPIO_GP_3_10, GPIO_GP_3_11, > > > - GPIO_GP_3_12, GPIO_GP_3_13, GPIO_GP_3_14, GPIO_GP_3_15, > > > - GPIO_GP_3_16, GPIO_GP_3_17, GPIO_GP_3_18, GPIO_GP_3_19, > > > - GPIO_GP_3_20, GPIO_GP_3_21, GPIO_GP_3_22, GPIO_GP_3_23, > > > - GPIO_GP_3_24, GPIO_GP_3_25, GPIO_GP_3_26, GPIO_GP_3_27, > > > - GPIO_GP_3_28, GPIO_GP_3_29, GPIO_GP_3_30, GPIO_GP_3_31, > > > > In the data sheet and schematics it is possible to look up pins and > > signals using names like GPIO_GP_n_x. Those names in the data sheet > > and in the schematics match the enums in the header above. This makes > > it easy to match the schematics with the code, something that is > > important for anyone actually using our code. > > > > However, while moving towards PINCTRL it seems that we're having a > > regression in usefulness. Now we use pin numbers. On some SoCs that > > maps well, but on others like the ones using GPIO_GP_n_x this turns > > the board code into an unreadable mess. > > > > For instance, if you find a GPIO in the board code with the value 123 > > and you want to match that to the data sheet, these days we have to > > convert it manually. Perhaps to GPIO_3_29. And people have to convert > > it the other way too when they are implementing the board code. These > > kind of things are error prone. =) > > > > Would it be possible to introduce a macro like GPIO_GP(n, m) that on > > selected SoCs allows us to use the same style as before? > > > > I suppose the same style could be used with the DT preprocessor. It's > > funny, DT gains a preprocessor and we stop using it in C... -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart