From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: sh-pfc: r8a7794: add VIN pin groups
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:12:42 +0300
Message-ID: <560E66AA.4080901@cogentembedded.com>
References: <13219129.kD4pZSmcAP@wasted.cogentembedded.com>
 <2918225.gAfMYgxlCz@wasted.cogentembedded.com>
 <CAMuHMdXkjdwbqOd9XHMsTdKD6qkUyEDeJ1L5HmwkADUDP2jXXw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdXkjdwbqOd9XHMsTdKD6qkUyEDeJ1L5HmwkADUDP2jXXw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>, "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org

Hello.

On 10/2/2015 10:59 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

>> +/* - VIN1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- */
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data8_pins[] = {
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 12), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 13),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 15),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 16), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 17),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 18), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 19),
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data8_mux[] = {
>> +       VI1_DATA0_MARK, VI1_DATA1_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA2_MARK, VI1_DATA3_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA4_MARK, VI1_DATA5_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA6_MARK, VI1_DATA7_MARK,
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data12_pins[] = {
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 12), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 13),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 14), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 15),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 16), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 17),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 18), RCAR_GP_PIN(5, 19),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 10), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 11),
>> +       RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 12), RCAR_GP_PIN(1, 13),
>> +};
>> +static const unsigned int vin1_data12_mux[] = {
>> +       VI1_DATA0_MARK, VI1_DATA1_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA2_MARK, VI1_DATA3_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA4_MARK, VI1_DATA5_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA6_MARK, VI1_DATA7_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA8_MARK, VI1_DATA9_MARK,
>> +       VI1_DATA10_MARK, VI1_DATA11_MARK,
>> +};
>
> Given Laurent asked to slightly rework this series, perhaps
> vin1_data*[] can use a union to decrease memory usage, too?

    You're right -- using 'union vin_data' would save some memory now that we 
have 3 pairs of arrays.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                          Geert

MBR, Sergei