On 13/12/2023 09:10, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Peter's Google's structures went to the end, which was actually
alphabetical. You also added to the end thus git could not apply the
patch. Even cherry-pick had troubles, so I need to manually copy code
from downloaded patch. That's the main reason of not putting stuff to
the end, but to some logical place, usually alphabetical.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
