Hi Morimoto-san,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:37 AM Kuninori Morimoto
<kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > My worry is not about the group of pins marked _X, but about its
> > siblings without _X. E.g. your patches have SCIF1 and SCIF1_X,
> > but we do not know yet if SCIF1 should be renamed, too.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I agree it is unlikely to become an issue with TCLK soon, but (H)SCIF1
> > are more likely to become enabled, also on real products.
>
> Yeah.
>
> But *current* product (White Hawk) is using (H)SCIF0 which doesn't
> have rename issue. I think we don't need to super care about not
> used SCIF for now (?), at least it is following *current* latest datasheet.
>
> If you can accept about it, I will post v4 patch-set soon,
> and will post naming update patch when new datasheet coming.
>
> If you can't, I will wait new datasheet, and post v4 patch-set
> which is including naming update.
>
> But one note here is that we don't know when the new datasheet will comming,
> and we don't know it solves all naming issue and/or there will be no more naming issue.
OK, then please continue.
But perhaps add a comment to the SH_PFC_PIN_GROUP() definitions,
to make it clear they are preliminary?
Thanks!
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
