Hi Geert > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > --- > Please review and comment! > > - I still have a hard time understanding the subtilties of the various > PINMUX_IPSR_*() macros, > - Which macro is most appropriate for describing single-function pins: > PINMUX_DATA() or PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP()? > (cfr. "[RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: r8a7795: Add pinmux data for > single-function pins", > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg44823.html
I don't care about this, but my point was that I don't like directly using xxx_MARK in pinmux_data[] (it looks like different style). And it already had PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP() list in end of pinmux_data[] > +/* > + * Describe a pinmux configuration without GPIO function that needs > + * configuration in a Peripheral Function Select Register (IPSR) > + * - ipsr: IPSR field (unused, for documentation purposes only) > + * - fn: Function name > + */ > #define PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP(ispr, fn) \ > PINMUX_DATA(fn##_MARK, FN_##fn) (snip) > +/* > + * Describe a pinmux configuration where ??? > + * - ipsr: IPSR field > + * - fn: Function name > + * - ms: Configuration register selector > + */ > #define PINMUX_IPSR_NOGM(ispr, fn, ms) > \ > PINMUX_DATA(fn##_MARK, FN_##fn, FN_##ms) I forgot detail, but this NOGM = NOGP + MSEL It doesn't need GP settings, but need SEL_xxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
