On 2/18/19 2:41 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi,
> 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 ?
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
