On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:46 PM Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The blamed commit introduce support for lan966x which use the same > pinconf_ops as sparx5. The problem is that pinconf_ops is specific to > sparx5. More precisely the offset of the bits in the pincfg register are > different and also lan966x doesn't have support for > PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE. > > Fix this by making pinconf_ops more generic such that it can be also > used by lan966x. This is done by introducing 'ocelot_pincfg_data' which > contains the offset and what is supported for each SOC. Looks better, my comments below. ... > + const struct ocelot_pincfg_data *opd = info->pincfg_data; This one... ... > @@ -1425,17 +1436,20 @@ static int ocelot_pinconf_get(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, ...can also be applied here... ... > case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN: > arg = (param == PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE) ? 0 : > - (param == PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP) ? BIAS_PU_BIT : > - BIAS_PD_BIT; > + (param == PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP) ? info->pincfg_data->pu_bit : > + info->pincfg_data->pd_bit; ...which in particular may help to sort out this indentation mess. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko