[PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: remove slew-rate parameter from tz1090
Heiko Stübner
heiko at sntech.de
Tue Jun 25 23:21:55 EST 2013
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 <heiko at sntech.de>
> > ---
>
> <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.
Heiko
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list