On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:53:02 PM CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/31/2016 02:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:13:25 PM CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > >> +#define PIN_PULL_NONE 0 > >> +#define PIN_PULL_DOWN 1 > >> +#define PIN_PULL_UP 3 > >> + > >> +#define PIN_DRV_LV1 0 > >> +#define PIN_DRV_LV2 2 > >> +#define PIN_DRV_LV3 1 > >> +#define PIN_DRV_LV4 3 > >> + > >> +#define PIN_FUNC_INPUT 0 > >> +#define PIN_FUNC_OUTPUT 1 > >> +#define PIN_FUNC_SPC_2 2 > >> +#define PIN_FUNC_SPC_3 3 > >> +#define PIN_FUNC_SPC_4 4 > >> +#define PIN_FUNC_SPC_5 5 > >> +#define PIN_FUNC_SPC_F 0xf > > > > Any reason for having a copy in each of those files instead of one > > that is shared across all of them? > > The drive strengths differ between some of them. There are three groups > of drive strengths: > 1. Exynos3250, Exynos4 (all) and Exynos5250, > 2. Exynos5260, > 3. Exynos5410, 542x and 5800. I see. That sounds like an even stronger reason to not duplicate the definitions, as this is very confusing. > Rest (functions and pull up/down) is the same so sharing the defines is > possible but not that obvious. Solution would be for example adding a > SoC-family prefix for PIN_DRV_LVx. Not that good... > > I could put it into three DTSI: > - exynos3-pinctrl.dtsi (new file) > - exynos5260-pinctrl.dtsi (like it is now) > - exynos54xx-pinctrl.dtsi (new file) > > which would reduce the duplication. Other ideas? I think having the soc-family prefix is better, as it avoids defining the same symbol to a different value. Better make this as explicit as possible. I think overall, a better solution would have been to define the constants globally (shared with non-exynos) to start with, and have the driver translate generic numbers into vendor specific ones. Obviously it's too late for that now. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
