On 25/06/13 14:21, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juni 2013, 15:05:05 schrieb James Hogan: >> Hi Heiko, >> >> On 25/06/13 13:56, Heiko Stübner wrote: >>> As the binding for slew-rate is under discussion and seems to need >>> more tought it will get removed for now, so it doesn't get an offical >> >> s/tought/thought/ >> s/offical/official/ >> >>> release. >>> >>> Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> >>> --- >> >> <snip> >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c >>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c index 12e4808..d4f12cc 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c >>> @@ -809,11 +809,6 @@ static int tz1090_pdc_pinconf_group_reg(struct >>> pinctrl_dev *pctldev, >>> >>> *width = 1; >>> *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; >>> break; >>> >>> - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: >>> - *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S; >>> - *width = 1; >>> - *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; >>> - break; >>> >>> case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: >>> *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S; >>> *width = 2; >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c >>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c index 02ff3a2..4edae08 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c >>> @@ -1834,11 +1834,6 @@ static int tz1090_pinconf_group_reg(struct >>> pinctrl_dev *pctldev, >>> >>> *width = 1; >>> *map = tz1090_boolean_map; >>> break; >>> >>> - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: >>> - *reg = REG_PINCTRL_SR; >>> - *width = 1; >>> - *map = tz1090_boolean_map; >>> - break; >>> >>> case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: >>> *reg = REG_PINCTRL_DR; >>> *width = 2; >> >> I don't see the harm in keeping the handling of PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE, >> since PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE is still present and you only seem to be >> removing the device tree bindings (which is the only important bit from >> the DT ABI point of view). > > I'm partial to this :-) > > My thoughts were that this code would never be reached when the parsing was > removed and to not cause confusion to the driver when an acceptable binding > was found for slew-rate. > > But it of course also doesn't hurt to stay in.
Okay, fair enough. Acked-by: James Hogan <[email protected]> Cheers James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
