Hi Andy,
Le mercredi 13 décembre 2023 à 15:21 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:55:46AM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > Le lundi 11 décembre 2023 à 20:57 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
>
> ...
>
> > > -#define INGENIC_PIN_GROUP(name, id, func) \
> > > - INGENIC_PIN_GROUP_FUNCS(name, id, (void *)(func))
> > > +#define INGENIC_PIN_GROUP(_name_, id,
> > > func) \
> > > + {
> > > \
> > > + .name =
> > > _name_, \
> > > + .pins =
> > > id##_pins, \
> > > + .num_pins =
> > > ARRAY_SIZE(id##_pins), \
> > > + .data = (void
> > > *)func, \
> > > + }
> >
> > This INGENIC_PIN_GROUP() macro doesn't need to be modified, does
> > it?
>
> We can go either way. I prefer to go this way as it reduces level of
> indirections in the macros. It makes code easier to read and
> understand.
> But if you insist, I can drop that change in next version.
>
I like the patches to be minimal. But I understand your point of view
as well.
If you have to issue a v6, maybe state the reason why you also modify
INGENIC_PIN_GROUP() then. But I don't care enough to request a v6 just
for that.
So:
Acked-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers,
-Paul
