On 13/12/2023 09:10, Jaewon Kim wrote: > > On 23. 12. 13. 16:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/12/2023 12:41, Jaewon Kim wrote: >>> Add pinctrl data for ExynosAutov920 SoC. >>> It has a newly applied pinctrl register layer for ExynosAuto series. >>> >>> Pinctrl data for ExynosAutoV920 SoC. >>> - GPA0,GPA1 (10): External wake up interrupt >>> - GPQ0 (2): SPMI (PMIC I/F) >>> - GPB0,GPB1,GPB2,GPB3,GPB4,GPB5,GPB6 (47): I2S Audio >>> - GPH0,GPH1,GPH2,GPH3,GPH4,GPH5,GPH6,GPH8 (49): PCIE, UFS, Ethernet >>> - GPG0,GPG1,GPG2,GPG3,GPG4,GPG5 (29): General purpose >>> - GPP0,GPP1,GPP2,GPP3,GPP4,GPP5,GPP6,GPP7,GPP8,GPP9,GPP10 (77): USI >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jaewon Kim <jaewon02.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c | 140 ++++++++++++++++++ >>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c | 23 ++- >>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.h | 25 ++++ >>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 2 + >>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.h | 1 + >>> 5 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c >>> index cb965cf93705..a998c296dd05 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c >>> @@ -796,3 +796,143 @@ const struct samsung_pinctrl_of_match_data fsd_of_data __initconst = { >>> .ctrl = fsd_pin_ctrl, >>> .num_ctrl = ARRAY_SIZE(fsd_pin_ctrl), >>> }; >>> + >>> +/* pin banks of exynosautov920 pin-controller 0 (ALIVE) */ >>> +static const struct samsung_pin_bank_data exynosautov920_pin_banks0[] = { >>> + EXYNOSV920_PIN_BANK_EINTW(8, 0x0000, "gpa0", 0x18, 0x24, 0x28), >>> + EXYNOSV920_PIN_BANK_EINTW(2, 0x1000, "gpa1", 0x18, 0x20, 0x24), >>> + EXYNOS850_PIN_BANK_EINTN(2, 0x2000, "gpq0"), >>> +};e >> Applied with re-ordering it, to keep it after ExynosAutov9. For the >> future: don't add entries to the end of lists because it causes exactly >> this issue we have here: unnecessary conflicts. Please keep this rule >> for entire development, not only pinctrl. >> >> If both you and Peter were observing this basic rule, I would not have >> work of reshuffling and fixing conflicts. >> >> Please check the result if I reshuffled/solved conflicts correctly. >> > > I thought the new SoC should go to the end, but I was wrong. > Peter's Google's structures went to the end, which was actually alphabetical. You also added to the end thus git could not apply the patch. Even cherry-pick had troubles, so I need to manually copy code from downloaded patch. That's the main reason of not putting stuff to the end, but to some logical place, usually alphabetical. Best regards, Krzysztof