From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A1142904; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 04:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725339432; cv=none; b=YBrrrZ7f26/ipwFoO8lamkqi4aX1zH0fvUw0tZmUFiTILBSh3dpGtnH/LmNs/S0eHYdtzDIJ+liJzeYsYeBXrhtxn2Lxm694FCokY4UlrGzwKF7FCbMxmohbgOkDXjU/ZVEj9k1JFWTr6tVwYAudBTiMs+RTtAsptGyuqkox/No= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725339432; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bd+sRLC6HH+A8wx6Pbv3VKtu9Vb/vHaKAATRLwePD4I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YG8Cn1RqzHJnaruurFaOXXlM//JWEW+lCRayvilRy8dx6fUTj8lA6RlWrLlpmzgtF83UX/cWvoYY7+nF2Jn3+3et44+GKD8yXhHLYC3yDbSpt8r3z8vGEN13KBzmCAPiY4Nh8GK/nUlXQFAsS+1LN54m517VSn8/HmXB3VRY/7U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=I0YPQt2y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="I0YPQt2y" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1725339431; x=1756875431; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=bd+sRLC6HH+A8wx6Pbv3VKtu9Vb/vHaKAATRLwePD4I=; b=I0YPQt2yqtftiHKRuqNBPqM0MIkM3CN4ky6owL2ohjPkjsE4RrGd9Tue THXud9RddKTAHZV7OB465M+TnYFsUYRzA9gO3Q4ZiqnvMvS4WOsSSMjkI 7b+Xkgt5LiYUbbB0vb7hr8nqQOsy2eM58mKTRvH5Mnz4eQtlDI3q5HPMr 8AOFl1JSCMuhknopNodLFFhbtNHzW6yl3d7ZgxvpQrwb2/W5/0n0hE9Gp cB6gWdL4NEesRIl8sjWuOkonmM3qcsY7CYWs3BuezIhaZ+6pGN+L60y2D uhbPYg6AcI2eof5f9VD0Q283RHpGu2658t1DsR7aEKl2y5g4TDMGVRpux Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: aiydig5OTpms4GMo9HYNFw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 2DkhcMTBSoSDbWZCC/Tl1g== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11183"; a="13338055" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,197,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="13338055" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by fmvoesa110.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Sep 2024 21:57:10 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Zv+/GkIvTFm9XtqP+ZPu3w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: iE3SDYMtSvqltQkdLr19SA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,197,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="64412398" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by fmviesa006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Sep 2024 21:57:09 -0700 Received: by black.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B0F341FA; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 07:57:06 +0300 (EEST) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 07:57:06 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pinctrl: intel: Constify struct intel_pinctrl parameter Message-ID: <20240903045706.GY1532424@black.fi.intel.com> References: <20240902141607.2694988-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240902141607.2694988-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 05:15:11PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > -static void __iomem *intel_get_padcfg(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl, > +static void __iomem *intel_get_padcfg(const struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl, > unsigned int pin, unsigned int reg) This is not good. You take const pointer but return non-const inside that struct. I don't think we should "change" the constness this way. All changes that take const pointer and return scalar are fine, though (did not check all of them).