From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Hogan Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:05:05 +0100 Message-ID: <51C99581.2010403@imgtec.com> References: <201306251455.01540.heiko@sntech.de> <201306251456.36499.heiko@sntech.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201306251456.36499.heiko@sntech.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?SGVpa28gU3TDvGJuZXI=?= 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 Hi Heiko, 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 offical s/tought/thought/ s/offical/official/ > release. >=20 > Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner > --- > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c b/drivers/pinctrl/p= inctrl-tz1090-pdc.c > index 12e4808..d4f12cc 100644 > --- 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 p= inctrl_dev *pctldev, > *width =3D 1; > *map =3D tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > break; > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > - *shift =3D REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S; > - *width =3D 1; > - *map =3D tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > - break; > case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: > *shift =3D REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S; > *width =3D 2; > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinct= rl-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 pin= ctrl_dev *pctldev, > *width =3D 1; > *map =3D tz1090_boolean_map; > break; > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > - *reg =3D REG_PINCTRL_SR; > - *width =3D 1; > - *map =3D tz1090_boolean_map; > - break; > 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 from the DT ABI point of view). Cheers James From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751816Ab3FYNFK (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:05:10 -0400 Received: from multi.imgtec.com ([194.200.65.239]:21784 "EHLO multi.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751076Ab3FYNFJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:05:09 -0400 Message-ID: <51C99581.2010403@imgtec.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:05:05 +0100 From: James Hogan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?SGVpa28gU3TDvGJuZXI=?= CC: Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , , , Grant Likely , Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090 References: <201306251455.01540.heiko@sntech.de> <201306251456.36499.heiko@sntech.de> In-Reply-To: <201306251456.36499.heiko@sntech.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.65] X-SEF-Processed: 7_3_0_01192__2013_06_25_14_05_06 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Heiko, On 25/06/13 13:56, Heiko Stübner 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 offical s/tought/thought/ s/offical/official/ > release. > > Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090. > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner > --- > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c > index 12e4808..d4f12cc 100644 > --- 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, > *width = 1; > *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > break; > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > - *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S; > - *width = 1; > - *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > - break; > case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: > *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S; > *width = 2; > 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, > *width = 1; > *map = tz1090_boolean_map; > break; > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > - *reg = REG_PINCTRL_SR; > - *width = 1; > - *map = tz1090_boolean_map; > - break; > case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: > *reg = REG_PINCTRL_DR; > *width = 2; > 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 from the DT ABI point of view). Cheers James