Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl and GPIOs

["Esteban Blanc" <eblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue May 16, 2023 at 6:48 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:05 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri May 12, 2023 at 7:07 PM CEST,  wrote:
> > > Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti:

...

> > > > -#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)          (0x31 + (gpio_inst))
> > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF                             0x31
> > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)  (TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF + (gpio_inst))
> > >
> > > Why? The original code with parameter 0 will issue the same.
> >
> > I felt that replacing 0x31 with a constant would make the computation
> > in TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONFIG more understandable. What do you think?
>
> The question is why that register is so special that you need to have
> it as a constant explicitly?

It is not special, it's just the first one of the serie of config
registers. I felt like just having 0x31 without context was a bit weird

Best regards,

-- 
Esteban Blanc
BayLibre