On 23. 12. 13. 16:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 12:41, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>> Add pinctrl data for ExynosAutov920 SoC.
>> It has a newly applied pinctrl register layer for ExynosAuto series.
>>
>> Pinctrl data for ExynosAutoV920 SoC.
>> - GPA0,GPA1 (10): External wake up interrupt
>> - GPQ0 (2): SPMI (PMIC I/F)
>> - GPB0,GPB1,GPB2,GPB3,GPB4,GPB5,GPB6 (47): I2S Audio
>> - GPH0,GPH1,GPH2,GPH3,GPH4,GPH5,GPH6,GPH8 (49): PCIE, UFS, Ethernet
>> - GPG0,GPG1,GPG2,GPG3,GPG4,GPG5 (29): General purpose
>> - GPP0,GPP1,GPP2,GPP3,GPP4,GPP5,GPP6,GPP7,GPP8,GPP9,GPP10 (77): USI
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jaewon Kim <jaewon02.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> .../pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c | 140 ++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c | 23 ++-
>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.h | 25 ++++
>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 2 +
>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.h | 1 +
>> 5 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c
>> index cb965cf93705..a998c296dd05 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos-arm64.c
>> @@ -796,3 +796,143 @@ const struct samsung_pinctrl_of_match_data fsd_of_data __initconst = {
>> .ctrl = fsd_pin_ctrl,
>> .num_ctrl = ARRAY_SIZE(fsd_pin_ctrl),
>> };
>> +
>> +/* pin banks of exynosautov920 pin-controller 0 (ALIVE) */
>> +static const struct samsung_pin_bank_data exynosautov920_pin_banks0[] = {
>> + EXYNOSV920_PIN_BANK_EINTW(8, 0x0000, "gpa0", 0x18, 0x24, 0x28),
>> + EXYNOSV920_PIN_BANK_EINTW(2, 0x1000, "gpa1", 0x18, 0x20, 0x24),
>> + EXYNOS850_PIN_BANK_EINTN(2, 0x2000, "gpq0"),
>> +};e
> Applied with re-ordering it, to keep it after ExynosAutov9. For the
> future: don't add entries to the end of lists because it causes exactly
> this issue we have here: unnecessary conflicts. Please keep this rule
> for entire development, not only pinctrl.
>
> If both you and Peter were observing this basic rule, I would not have
> work of reshuffling and fixing conflicts.
>
> Please check the result if I reshuffled/solved conflicts correctly.
>
I thought the new SoC should go to the end, but I was wrong.
I will follow your comments in alphabetical order.
Thanks you sincerely.
Thanks
Jaewon Kim
