On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 04:59:21PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:35:50PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 03:36:36PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > [ Upstream commit e0cdd26af8eb9001689a4cde4f72c61c1c4b06be ] > > > > > > The pinfunc definitions used GPIO_A as function instead of GPIO_1_0 as > > > done for all the other pins with GPIO functionality. Fix for consistency. > > > > > > There are no mainline users that needs adaption. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I'm not convinced it's a good idea to take this patch for stable. > > in-tree users are unaffected and the only effect this can have on > > out-of-tree users is to break them. So the gain of having this is not > > positive. > > > > Am I missing something? > > Hm, if those definitions don't have an in-tree users, why are they still > around to begin with? It's hardware description and out-of-tree dts might make use of it. Even if no in-tree user benefits, it's IMO better to have this included, but I admit you could judge differently here. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
