Hi Sergei,
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The R8A7791 PFC driver was apparently based on the preliminary revisions
> of the user's manual, which called all the I2C signals {SCL|SDA}<n> and
> MOD_SEL register fields SEL_IIC<n> without making a difference between two
> types of the I2C controllers used. The recent manual calls the signals
> {I2C|IIC}<n>_{SCL|SDA> and the MOD_SEL fields SEL_{I2C|IIC}<n> finally
> making this difference. Follow the suit, also renaming the I2C{7|8} pin
> arrays and groups/functions (luckily, they haven't been used so far).
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for your patch!
> drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c | 521 +++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 264 insertions(+), 257 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pinctrl/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pinctrl.orig/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c
> +++ linux-pinctrl/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7791.c
> @@ -119,22 +119,22 @@ enum {
> /* IPSR0 */
> FN_D0, FN_D1, FN_D2, FN_D3, FN_D4, FN_D5, FN_D6, FN_D7, FN_D8,
> FN_D9, FN_D10, FN_D11, FN_D12, FN_D13, FN_D14, FN_D15,
> - FN_A0, FN_ATAWR0_N_C, FN_MSIOF0_SCK_B, FN_SCL0_C, FN_PWM2_B,
> + FN_A0, FN_ATAWR0_N_C, FN_MSIOF0_SCK_B, FN_I2C0_SCL_C, FN_PWM2_B,
While I have no issue with renaming internal definitions...
> @@ -4507,12 +4514,12 @@ static const struct sh_pfc_pin_group pin
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c4),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c4_b),
> SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c4_c),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c7),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c7_b),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c7_c),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c8),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c8_b),
> - SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(i2c8_c),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(iic0),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(iic0_b),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(iic0_c),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(iic1),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(iic1_b),
> + SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP(iic1_c),
I do object against renaming the user-visible names, like pin groups...
> @@ -5298,8 +5305,8 @@ static const struct sh_pfc_function pinm
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(i2c2),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(i2c3),
> SH_PFC_FUNCTION(i2c4),
> - SH_PFC_FUNCTION(i2c7),
> - SH_PFC_FUNCTION(i2c8),
> + SH_PFC_FUNCTION(iic0),
> + SH_PFC_FUNCTION(iic1),
... and pin functions. Technically, they are part of the DT bindings,
and thus are not allowed to change.
IMHO either the user-visible names should be left alone, or the new names
should be added as alternatives, next to the existing names.
What do other people think?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
