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 14:27:17 +0100 Message-ID: <51C99AB5.1080002@imgtec.com> References: <201306251455.01540.heiko@sntech.de> <201306251456.36499.heiko@sntech.de> <51C99581.2010403@imgtec.com> <201306251521.55634.heiko@sntech.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201306251521.55634.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 On 25/06/13 14:21, Heiko St=C3=BCbner wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013, 15:05:05 schrieb James Hogan: >> 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 offic= al >> >> 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 10064= 4 >>> --- 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 =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/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 =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; >> >> 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 f= rom >> the DT ABI point of view). >=20 > I'm partial to this :-) >=20 > My thoughts were that this code would never be reached when the parsi= ng was=20 > removed and to not cause confusion to the driver when an acceptable b= inding=20 > was found for slew-rate. >=20 > But it of course also doesn't hurt to stay in. Okay, fair enough. Acked-by: James Hogan 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 S1751913Ab3FYN1z (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:27:55 -0400 Received: from multi.imgtec.com ([194.200.65.239]:26683 "EHLO multi.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317Ab3FYN1y (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:27:54 -0400 Message-ID: <51C99AB5.1080002@imgtec.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:27:17 +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> <51C99581.2010403@imgtec.com> <201306251521.55634.heiko@sntech.de> In-Reply-To: <201306251521.55634.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_27_53 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25/06/13 14:21, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013, 15:05:05 schrieb James Hogan: >> 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). > > I'm partial to this :-) > > My thoughts were that this code would never be reached when the parsing was > removed and to not cause confusion to the driver when an acceptable binding > was found for slew-rate. > > But it of course also doesn't hurt to stay in. Okay, fair enough. Acked-by: James Hogan Cheers James