Hi Marek,
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/18/19 2:41 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:38 PM Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 2/18/19 2:32 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>>>> struct pinmux_data_reg {
> >>>>>> u32 reg;
> >>>>>> u8 reg_width;
> >>>>>> @@ -270,6 +274,7 @@ struct sh_pfc_soc_info {
> >>>>>> const struct pinmux_drive_reg *drive_regs;
> >>>>>> const struct pinmux_bias_reg *bias_regs;
> >>>>>> const struct pinmux_ioctrl_reg *ioctrl_regs;
> >>>>>> + const struct pinmux_tdsel_reg *tdsel_regs;
> >>>>>> const struct pinmux_data_reg *data_regs;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> const u16 *pinmux_data;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there any special reason why you added a new block of registers with
> >>>>> separate handling, instead of adding TDSEL to the existing
> >>>>> pinmux_ioctrl_reg[] arrays, which list other IOCTRL registers like
> >>>>> POCCTRL?
> >>>>
> >>>> For one, It's unrelated register to POCCTRL, so I don't want to mix them
> >>>
> >>> That's why the array is called pinmux_ioctrl_reg[], not
> >>> pinmux_pocctrl_reg[]:
> >>> it is meant to cover various I/O control registers, including POCCTRL and
> >>> TDSEL, to be saved/restored for PSCI system suspend.
> >>
> >> I thought the array is called pinmux_ioctrl_reg[] because that's what
> >> the pocctrl was called in older datasheets ? At least that's how you
> >> explained it on IRC last time.
> >
> > Ah, that's where the misunderstanding comes from: both POCCTRLx and
> > TDSELy registers are sometimes called IOCTRLz registers.
> >
>
> Then shouldn't we rename IOCTRL30 to POCCTRL first, and then add TDSEL
> into the list ?
Sure. I've already done so, but haven't sent out the patches yet.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
