Re: [PATCH v1 02/10] pinctrl: alderlake: Switch to INTEL_GPP() macro

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 12:55:35PM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:51:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:50 PM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:40:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > Replace custom macro with the recently defined INTEL_GPP().

...

> > > > > > -#define ADL_GPP(r, s, e, g)                              \
> > > > > > - {                                               \
> > > > > > -         .reg_num = (r),                         \
> > > > > > -         .base = (s),                            \
> > > > > > -         .size = ((e) - (s) + 1),                \
> > > > > > -         .gpio_base = (g),                       \
> > > > > > - }
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if simply doing this:
> > > > >
> > > > > #define ADL_GPP(r, s, e, g) INTEL_GPP(r, s, e, g)
> > > >
> > > > We can, but it will give a couple of lines in each driver still be left.
> > > > Do you think it's better?
> > >
> > > I think that's better because it is less changed lines but I'm fine either
> > > way.
> > 
> > Okay, I will try it and see how it looks like and then I'll either
> > send a v2 or ask for a tag for this one. Sounds good?
> 
> Yes.

After more thinking I guess I want it as is (here in v1). In cases
when we define some parameters differently it will make sense to have
an intermediate definition, but here. Can you give your Ack, please?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko