From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] pinctrl: samsung: Do not pass gpio_chip to pin_to_reg_bank Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:51:37 +0200 Message-ID: <1519398.vRBS8CYjxJ@amdc1227> References: <1349685556-23718-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <1349685556-23718-11-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-reply-to: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Thomas Abraham , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, swarren@wwwdotorg.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, tomasz.figa@gmail.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 10 of October 2012 09:42:10 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > The pointer to gpio_chip passed to pin_to_reg_bank utility function is > > used only to retrieve a pointer to samsung_pinctrl_drv_data structure. > > > > This patch modifies the function and its users to pass a pointer to > > samsung_pinctrl_drv_data directly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa > > Looks good, can it be applied without the others? Yes, I think this one should apply fine. > Maybe you can make a patch series without all the > stuff moving register offsets to the DT so I can begin > with merging that and we can discuss the movement > of register info separately? I already considered this approach, but it introduces some problems, as I mentioned in my other replies. Best regards, -- Tomasz Figa Samsung Poland R&D Center