Re: [PATCH][RFC] sh-pfc: add new PINMUX_IPSR_MODS() macro

[Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Laurent

> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP(ispr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_DATA(ipsr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_NOGM(ispr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_NOFN(ipsr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_MSEL(ipsr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_MODSEL_DATA(ipsr, ...)
> > 
> > These are readable
> > 
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP(ispr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_DATA(ipsr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_NOGM(ispr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_NOFN(ipsr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_MSEL(ipsr, ...)
> > 	PINMUX_IPSR_MODS(ipsr, ...)
> > 
> > We can replace all PINMUX_IPSR_MODSEL_DATA() to PINMUX_IPSR_MODS(),
> > and remove PINMUX_IPSR_MODSEL_DATA() from header.
> 
> I agree that the PINMUX_IPSR_MODSEL_DATA() name makes code harder to read. 
> However, PINMUX_IPSR_MODS() isn't very descriptive, I think it would make the 
> code confusing (not that it isn't already...).
> 
> The only difference between  PINMUX_IPSR_MSEL and PINMUX_IPSR_MODSEL_DATA is 
> the order in which the MODSEL, GSPR and IPSR registers are written. I wonder 
> if that's actually important, or if we could merge both macros into a single 
> one. What do you think ?

Yes, I agree about this.
But, PINMUX_IPSR_MSEL is used on r8a7778 only, and my concern is we don't know what happen
if we merged PINMUX_IPSR_MODSEL_DATA() and PINMUX_IPSR_MSEL()
And, I don't have bockw board now...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html