From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 04/14] pinctrl: sunxi: v3: really introduce support for V3 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:57:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20190318115733.4onedngeaqbm4txp@flea> References: <20190312152256.35574-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20190312152256.35574-5-icenowy@aosc.io> <20190312153654.25r5orlw7qjtlhbt@flea> <7B6C1341-BAB5-48C5-9E60-11BCEAC3D0CD@aosc.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kfiqbz764gzlm462" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Kocialkowski Cc: icenowy@aosc.io, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Chen-Yu Tsai , Rob Herring , Jagan Teki , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --kfiqbz764gzlm462 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:05:12PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > Hi, > > Le mardi 12 mars 2019 =C3=A0 23:45 +0800, Icenowy Zheng a =C3=A9crit : > > > > =E4=BA=8E 2019=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8812=E6=97=A5 GMT+08:00 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D= =8811:36:54, Maxime Ripard =E5=86=99=E5=88=B0: > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:22:46PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > > Introduce the GPIO pins that is only available on V3 (not on V3s) to > > > the > > > > V3 pinctrl driver. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng > > > > --- > > > > drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c | 291 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h | 2 + > > > > 2 files changed, 275 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c > > > b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c > > > > index 6704ce8e5e3d..54c210871a95 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c > > > > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > > > > /* > > > > - * Allwinner V3s SoCs pinctrl driver. > > > > + * Allwinner V3/V3s SoCs pinctrl driver. > > > > * > > > > * Copyright (C) 2016 Icenowy Zheng > > > > * > > > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ > > > > > > > > #include "pinctrl-sunxi.h" > > > > > > > > -static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun8i_v3s_pins[] =3D { > > > > +static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun8i_v3_v3s_pins[] =3D { > > > > > > I'm not sure all that remaining is worth it to be honest. It adds a > > > lot of noise for no particular reason (and the same goes for renaming > > > the file itself) > > > > Maybe keeping names is okay "for historial reasons". > > > > In fact I want to keep them. > > My two cents about this: kernel development is plagued by the unability > to rename and rework things as soon as backward compatibility is > involved. I believe that renaming and reworking things is quite a good > thing to do when it leads to a situation that is easier to understand > and makes more sense. > > In this case, I don't see any blockers that would prevent us from doing > this, so I am strongly in favor of it. I really don't see how increased > noise and "historical reasons" make up for better clarity. It simplifies the git history, for once, which has the side effect of reducing conflicts too. A second one is: Do you prefer to review patches that have some significant value (like a new feature, a bugfix, a new SoC support, etc) or one that renames files and / or symbols? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com --kfiqbz764gzlm462 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCXI+HnwAKCRDj7w1vZxhR xfbaAP4tTPJsX9kjGgO2E96g98P/Y+TcQb27RkXk4LjnteSexAEAw1P3kGgeQQ04 LmZksUSSEkd+Gy4cLhehmv11w/aPWAo= =CCMo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kfiqbz764gzlm462--