On 5/29/2020 6:11 AM, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> Am 28.05.20 um 21:21 schrieb Florian Fainelli:
>> The BCM7211 SoC uses the same pinconf_ops as the ones defined for the
>> BCM2711 SoC, match the compatible string and use the correct set of
>> options.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm2835.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm2835.c b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm2835.c
>> index 06bd2b70af3c..e8ad1824c6b3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm2835.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm2835.c
>> @@ -1137,6 +1137,10 @@ static const struct of_device_id bcm2835_pinctrl_match[] = {
>> .compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-gpio",
>> .data = &bcm2711_plat_data,
>> },
>> + {
>> + .compatible = "brcm,bcm7211-gpio",
>> + .data = &bcm2711_pinconf_ops,
>
> this doesn't look safe. Maybe bcm2711_plat_data?
Whoops you are right, I sent an incorrect version.
>
> Looks like the original patch series based on a older version. Please
> double check this still applies since the introduction of 58 GPIO
> support for BCM2711.
We can use bcm2711_plat_data, thanks Stefan.
--
Florian
