On 2/18/19 2:52 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi,
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2/18/19 2:41 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:38 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/19 2:32 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>>>> struct pinmux_data_reg {
>>>>>>>> u32 reg;
>>>>>>>> u8 reg_width;
>>>>>>>> @@ -270,6 +274,7 @@ struct sh_pfc_soc_info {
>>>>>>>> const struct pinmux_drive_reg *drive_regs;
>>>>>>>> const struct pinmux_bias_reg *bias_regs;
>>>>>>>> const struct pinmux_ioctrl_reg *ioctrl_regs;
>>>>>>>> + const struct pinmux_tdsel_reg *tdsel_regs;
>>>>>>>> const struct pinmux_data_reg *data_regs;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> const u16 *pinmux_data;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any special reason why you added a new block of registers with
>>>>>>> separate handling, instead of adding TDSEL to the existing
>>>>>>> pinmux_ioctrl_reg[] arrays, which list other IOCTRL registers like
>>>>>>> POCCTRL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For one, It's unrelated register to POCCTRL, so I don't want to mix them
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why the array is called pinmux_ioctrl_reg[], not pinmux_pocctrl_reg[]:
>>>>> it is meant to cover various I/O control registers, including POCCTRL and
>>>>> TDSEL, to be saved/restored for PSCI system suspend.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the array is called pinmux_ioctrl_reg[] because that's what
>>>> the pocctrl was called in older datasheets ? At least that's how you
>>>> explained it on IRC last time.
>>>
>>> Ah, that's where the misunderstanding comes from: both POCCTRLx and
>>> TDSELy registers are sometimes called IOCTRLz registers.
>>>
>>
>> Then shouldn't we rename IOCTRL30 to POCCTRL first, and then add TDSEL
>> into the list ?
>
> Sure. I've already done so, but haven't sent out the patches yet.
Then we'll have a conflict once I add the TDSEL. I can either cook
similar patch and send two patches or you send yours and I'll send this
one later. I'd prefer the former to make conflict resolution easier .
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
