Re: [PATCH] [RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Improve pinmux macros documentation

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

Hi Geert

> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Please review and comment!
> 
>   - I still have a hard time understanding the subtilties of the various
>     PINMUX_IPSR_*() macros,
>   - Which macro is most appropriate for describing single-function pins:
>     PINMUX_DATA() or PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP()?
>     (cfr. "[RFC] pinctrl: sh-pfc: r8a7795: Add pinmux data for
>      single-function pins",
>      http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg44823.html

I don't care about this, but my point was that I don't like
directly using xxx_MARK in pinmux_data[] (it looks like different style).
And it already had PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP() list in end of pinmux_data[]

> +/*
> + * Describe a pinmux configuration without GPIO function that needs
> + * configuration in a Peripheral Function Select Register (IPSR)
> + *   - ipsr: IPSR field (unused, for documentation purposes only)
> + *   - fn: Function name
> + */
>  #define PINMUX_IPSR_NOGP(ispr, fn)					\
>  	PINMUX_DATA(fn##_MARK, FN_##fn)
(snip)
> +/*
> + * Describe a pinmux configuration where ???
> + *   - ipsr: IPSR field
> + *   - fn: Function name
> + *   - ms: Configuration register selector
> + */
>  #define PINMUX_IPSR_NOGM(ispr, fn, ms)					\
>  	PINMUX_DATA(fn##_MARK, FN_##fn, FN_##ms)

I forgot detail, but this NOGM = NOGP + MSEL
It doesn't need GP settings, but need SEL_xxx
--
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