From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:01:44 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 02/03] pinctrl: sh-pfc: r8a7790: Break out USB0 OVC/VBUS In-Reply-To: References: <20140129230959.22655.55645.sendpatchset@w520> <1397857.qyLQY9XTlp@avalon> Message-ID: <4378236.uXc5XaI3pM@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Magnus, On Friday 31 January 2014 12:10:05 Magnus Damm wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday 30 January 2014 08:10:19 Magnus Damm wrote: > >> From: Magnus Damm > >> > >> Create a new group for the USB0 OVC/VBUS pin by itself. This > >> allows us to monitor PWEN as GPIO on the Lager board. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm > >> --- > >> > >> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c | 9 +++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > >> > >> --- 0001/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c > >> +++ work/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7790.c 2014-01-24 > > 10:23:32.000000000 > >> +0900 @@ -3231,6 +3231,13 @@ static const unsigned int usb0_pins[] = > >> static const unsigned int usb0_mux[] = { > >> USB0_PWEN_MARK, USB0_OVC_VBUS_MARK, > >> }; > >> +static const unsigned int usb0_ovc_vbus_pins[] = { > >> + /* OVC/VBUS */ > >> + RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 19), > >> +}; > >> +static const unsigned int usb0_ovc_vbus_mux[] = { > >> + USB0_OVC_VBUS_MARK, > >> +}; > > > > Another option would have been to split the existing usb0 group in > > usb0_pwen and usb0_ovc. I'm not sure which is better though, I'd just > > like to know if you had given it a thought. > > I actually did just that in my first local attempt, but I decided not > to since it will only cause potential breakage. OK. I assume that using PWEN without OVC/VBUS doesn't make sense, right ? > > Regardless, what about naming the new group usb0_ovc instead of > > usb0_ovc_bus to keep names short ? > > Is there any particular reason why you want shorter names? When it doesn't reduce clarity I prefer to keep names short, as that makes the code easier to read and write, and (slightly) lowers the memory footprint. > From my side, I prefer to keep the names in sync with the data sheet. In > this particular case it is a shared pin so OVC is used for Host while VBUS > is used for gadget, so if you're proposing to ditch VBUS then this feels > somewhat inconsistent with the current gadget use case. =) I thought the pin was used for over current detection only, but that doesn't make sense for function mode, you're right. Let's keep the name as-is then. Provided PWEN without OVC/VBUS doesn't make sense and won't be needed, Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart