From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: bcm2835: Add header file for pinctrl constants
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:31:31 +0000
Message-ID: <20150222213131.GA9837@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1424624396-812-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5700696.0jJhSRhno5@wuerfel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5700696.0jJhSRhno5@wuerfel>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: swarren@wwwdotorg.org, lee@kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, galak@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 09:13:23PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 22 February 2015 16:59:56 Charles Keepax wrote:
> > +
> > +/* IRQ Flags */
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_IRQ_RISING                         1
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_IRQ_FALLING                                2
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_IRQ_EDGE   (BCM2835_PIN_IRQ_RISING | \
> > +                                BCM2835_PIN_IRQ_FALLING)
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_IRQ_LOW                            4
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_IRQ_HIGH                           8
> 
> Are these different from the standard definitions?
> 
> > +/* Pin Function Settings */
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_GPIO_IN                       0
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_GPIO_OUT                      1
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_ALT5                          2
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_ALT4                          3
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_ALT0                          4
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_ALT1                          5
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_ALT2                          6
> > +#define BCM2835_PIN_FUNC_ALT3                          7
> 
> Why are these required? They don't seem to be used by any driver,
> which leads me to suspect that they are just the hardware numbers.
> 
> In that case, don't add any syntactical sugar like that and just
> use the hardware numbers directly.

Yeah they are just hardware numbers, I wasn't aware there was a
preference to use the numbers directly in which case just ignore
this patch.

> 
> What's with the strange mapping of numbers anyway?

You would need to ask Broadcom that :-)

Thanks,
Charles