On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:23:35AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Wolfram Sang <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > > b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > > index 44632b1a5c978c..8e068d8534de00 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7795.c > > @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ > > PORT_GP_CFG_16(0, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > PORT_GP_CFG_28(1, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > PORT_GP_CFG_15(2, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > - PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > - PORT_GP_CFG_18(4, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH), \ > > + PORT_GP_CFG_16(3, fn, sfx, SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_DRIVE_STRENGTH | > > SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE), \ > > Shouldn't this be split in PORT_GP_CFG_12() with SH_PFC_PIN_CFG_IO_VOLTAGE, > and PORT_GP_CFG_4() without?
Right. However, PORT_GP_CFG_4 doesn't allow to set an offset for the pin numbers. Options I see: a) keep it as is and rely on the checks in pin_to_pocctrl() b) use PORT_GP_CFG_12 and 4 times PORT_GP_CFG_1 which allow setting the pin number c) introduce (yet another) macro like PORT_GP_CFG_4_OFS So far, I thought a) was good enough. Now I tend to option b) because it is indeed more precise. We still can do c) if demand for such a macro increases. What do you think? Thanks, Wolfram
