> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 6:10 AM
> To: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx;
> tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx; s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx; linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx;
> wim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx;
> will@xxxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; olof@xxxxxxxxx;
> gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx;
> cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx; alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx; andre.draszik@xxxxxxxxxx;
> saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx; willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx; soc@xxxxxxxxxx;
> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-
> team@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/20] pinctrl: samsung: Add gs101 SoC pinctrl
> configuration
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 10:11 AM Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Add support for the pin-controller found on the gs101 SoC used in
> > Pixel 6 phones.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c | 159 ++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c | 2 +
> > drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.h | 34 ++++
> > drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 2 +
> > drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.h | 1 +
> > 5 files changed, 198 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c
> > b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c
> > index cb965cf93705..e1a0668ecb16 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c
> > @@ -796,3 +796,162 @@ const struct samsung_pinctrl_of_match_data
> fsd_of_data __initconst = {
> > .ctrl = fsd_pin_ctrl,
> > .num_ctrl = ARRAY_SIZE(fsd_pin_ctrl),
> > };
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * bank type for non-alive type
> > + * (CON bit field: 4, DAT bit field: 1, PUD bit field: 4, DRV bit
> > +field: 4)
> > + * (CONPDN bit field: 2, PUDPDN bit field: 4) */ static struct
> > +samsung_pin_bank_type gs101_bank_type_off = {
> > + .fld_width = { 4, 1, 4, 4, 2, 4, },
> > + .reg_offset = { 0x00, 0x04, 0x08, 0x0c, 0x10, 0x14, }, };
>
> This is just the same as exynos850_bank_type_off (100% duplication).
> Here is what I suggest. Now that it's obvious there is some common platform
> for moder Exynos SoCs, and it's probably Exynos9, I'd suggest next course of
> action (if maintainers agree):
> 1. Remove this one
> 2. Rename exynos850_bank_type_off to exynos9_bank_type_off
> 3. Use it for both gs101 and exynos850
>
> Does it make sense?
>
My opinion is to reuse exynos850 for gs101 (wherever applicable), same philosophy was historically followed in this file.
That way (using exynos850 for gs101) things will be simple.
Adding exynos9_* is not adding any benefit, rather it create confusion.
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * bank type for alive type
> > + * (CON bit field: 4, DAT bit field: 1, PUD bit field: 4, DRV bit
> > +field: 4) */ static const struct samsung_pin_bank_type
> > +gs101_bank_type_alive = {
> > + .fld_width = { 4, 1, 4, 4, },
> > + .reg_offset = { 0x00, 0x04, 0x08, 0x0c, }, };
[...]
