Hi Laurent, On Tuesday, January 31, 2017, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Monday 30 Jan 2017 19:19:18 Chris Brandt wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > + /* Port 5 */ > > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 0), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 1), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 2), > > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 3), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 4), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 5), > > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 6), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 7), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 8), > > > + RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 9), RZ_PIN_NAME(5, 10), > > > > The RZ/A1L (basically a subset of RZ/A1H to reduce cost) uses all 16 > > port pins on "port 5" so I'd like to include them as well. > > > > > +static const struct of_device_id rza1_pinctrl_of_match[] = { > > > + { .compatible = "renesas,rza1-pinctrl", }, > > > + { } > > > +}; > > > > Since this PFC driver file is specifically for RZ/A1, I think a better > > compatible string would be: > > > > .compatible = "renesas,r7s72100-renesas-pinctrl", > > Do we need to repeat "renesas" in the name ? And given that the datasheet > names the hardware "ports", how about "renesas,r7s72100-ports" ? The IP > core handles both pinctrl and GPIO, so "pinctrl" is a bit restrictive. Personally, I do not like "renesas,r7s72100-renesas-pinctrl". I was simply trying to follow the naming guidelines for DT. I like your suggestion of "renesas,r7s72100-ports" better. Cheers Chris -- 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