From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:24:56 +0100 Subject: [patch 1/1] iMX51: introduce MX51_GPIO_NR In-Reply-To: <87zksywt4l.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> References: <20101122224526.987309475@rtp-net.org> <87zksywt4l.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> Message-ID: <20101125082456.GL6017@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:04:09PM +0100, Arnaud Patard wrote: > Fabio Estevam writes: > > Hi, > > > Hi Arnaud, > > > > 2010/11/22 Arnaud Patard : > >> Currently, to define a GPIO number, we're using something like : > >> > >> #define EFIKAMX_PCBID0 ? ? ? ? (2*32 + 16) > >> > >> to define GPIO 3 16. > >> > >> This is not really readable and it's error prone imho (note the 3 vs 2). > >> So, I'm introducing a new macro to define this in a better way. Now, the > >> code sample become : > >> > >> #define EFIKAMX_PCBID0 ? ? ? ? MX51_GPIO_NR(3, 16) > > > > Can you rename the macro to MX5x_GPIO_NR instead of MX51_GPIO_NR? > > > > This way we can also use this macro for MX53 and MX508 when they show > > up in mainline. > > I've been wondering about to use MX5X instead of MX51 but I kept MX51 > because I didn't know how the GPIO will work on MX53. If they're > compatible, you're right, the name should be MX5X_GPIO_NR and not > MX51_GPIO_NR. Assuming you mail means that, I'm going to switch to > MX5X_GPIO_NR. So far all i.MX use the same gpio numbering and I see no reason why this should be changed in future SoCs, so I would go for a IMX_GPIO_NR instead of SoC specific variants. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |