Hi Prabhakar,
Thanks for your patch!
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:17 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Refactor the `rzg2l_pinctrl_pinconf_set()` function by moving the call to
> `arg = pinconf_to_config_argument(_configs[i])` to the beginning of the
> loop. Previously, this call was redundantly made in each case of the
> switch statement.
This is not 100% true: the PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_* cases do not
call pinconf_to_config_argument(). But I agree that calling it
unconditionally doesn't harm.
> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> @@ -1395,7 +1395,6 @@ static int rzg2l_pinctrl_pinconf_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> break;
>
> case PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT_ENABLE:
> - arg = pinconf_to_config_argument(_configs[i]);
> if (!(cfg & PIN_CFG_OEN))
> return -EINVAL;
> if (!pctrl->data->oen_write)
Missed opportunity for simplification:
case PIN_CONFIG_POWER_SOURCE:
- settings.power_source =
pinconf_to_config_argument(_configs[i]);
+ settings.power_source = arg;
break;
> @@ -1432,8 +1429,6 @@ static int rzg2l_pinctrl_pinconf_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> break;
>
> case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
> - arg = pinconf_to_config_argument(_configs[i]);
> -
> if (!(cfg & PIN_CFG_IOLH_A) || hwcfg->drive_strength_ua)
> return -EINVAL;
>
case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH_UA:
...
- settings.drive_strength_ua =
pinconf_to_config_argument(_configs[i]);
+ settings.drive_strength_ua = arg;
break;
The rest LGTM.
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
