From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: dts: s3c2416: Use macros for pinctrl configuration Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:17:13 +0200 Message-ID: <5137342.oSWmFr9Y8D@wuerfel> References: <1472721715-2833-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1608454.1ZuTJsprje@amdc1976> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Linus Walleij , Tomasz Figa , Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, javier@osg.samsung.com, Rob Herring , Kukjin Kim , Sylwester Nawrocki , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, September 1, 2016 1:12:18 PM CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > Shouldn't macros that are also used by s3c* be named as > > SAMSUNG_PIN_FUNC_2 etc. (s3c* SoCs are not Exynos)? > > Right, this is the inconsistency. The problem with "samsung" prefix is > that there is no guarantee it will be like that for newer SoCs. How > about one of: > 1. using the oldest prefix (S3C24XX in this case), > 2. duplicating them per SoC family (so S3C24XX, S3C64XX, EXYNOS). > ? I'd suggest living with the inconsistency and using EXYNOS as the prefix, as that is the most common one these days, even if the other ones predate it. Arnd