[PATCH] pinctrl: imx5: start numbering pad from 0

[troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky)]

On 8/14/2012 12:30 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 03:26, Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> On 8/13/2012 7:47 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>> Unlike imx6q pinctrl driver that starts nubmering pad from 0, imx5
>>> pinctrl drivers number pad from 1.  It causes problem/confusion when
>>> driver accesses imx51_pinctrl_pads array using pin ID as the index.
>>>
>>> Change imx51_pads and imx53_pads numbering start from 0.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c |  490
>>> +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>>    drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx53.c |  402 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>    2 files changed, 446 insertions(+), 446 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>>> index 9fd0216..fb84689 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>>> @@ -23,251 +23,251 @@
>>>    #include "pinctrl-imx.h"
>>>      enum imx51_pads {
>>> -       MX51_PAD_EIM_D16 = 1,
>>> -       MX51_PAD_EIM_D17 = 2,
> ...
>>> +       MX53_PAD_GPIO_19 = 0,
>>> +       MX53_PAD_KEY_COL0 = 1,
>>
>> Why not skip the = xx altogether??  The enum will auto-increment.
> Personally i'd like to keep it.
> The reason is that pin id is basic property of a pin per pinctrl
> subsystem's design
> so explicitly define it looks more clear to me and i'm not sure but
> it's possible that
> the pin id may be used in device tree in the future(maybe some other
> soc already uses it),
> And defining it has no big harming.
>
> Regards
> Dong Aisheng
> .
>
Then maybe #defines should be used, so that device tree can include this 
file and be run through C pre-processor?

Thanks
Troy