On 02/12/2023 02:36, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>
>
>> -----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.
I don't see much value in renaming exynos850 bank type to exynos9
considering:
1. We don't really know the bank types for all of Exynos9xxx SoCs,
2. Exynos7885 also uses Exynos850 bank types. Exynos7885 was much
earlier than Exynos9xxx family.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
