From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joonyoung Shim Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: samsung: remove exynos_gpio_cfg Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:13:54 +0900 Message-ID: <50D26652.1020205@samsung.com> References: <1355481842-17952-1-git-send-email-jy0922.shim@samsung.com> <20121219222255.49E263E0AD6@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25]:21442 "EHLO mailout2.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752207Ab2LTBNj (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:13:39 -0500 In-reply-to: <20121219222255.49E263E0AD6@localhost> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com Hi Grant, On 12/20/2012 07:22 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:44:01 +0900, Joonyoung Shim wrote: >> The exynos_gpio_cfg can be substituted to samsung_gpio_cfgs[8]. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim > Hi Joonyoung, > > I need some help here. I don't understand what this patch is for or how > it works. The commit text above doesn't give me enough information to > evaluate the patch. What is the intent here? Why is samsung_gpio_cfgs[8] > more correct than exynos_gpio_cfg? First, i just wondered why samsung_gpio_cfgs[8] is used in the exynos4_gpios_2[] even if exynos_gpio_cfg is exist and found samsung_gpio_cfgs[8] does same thing with exynos_gpio_cfg. The exynos_gpio_cfg is used only for Exynos SoCs so it is compiled by #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS4) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5). I think one can be removed because they are duplicated codes and it is better to decrease use of #if defined. Thanks. > g. > >