3.16.70-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
commit 8e32e881947be98abaa917157fefc4a3319e90af upstream.
When declaring the HSPI RX1_B and TX1_B pins, two mistakes were made:
- the rows and columns in the BGA pin matrix, from which the pin
numbers are derived, were exchanged,
- it was not taken into account that pin row labelling skips
characters I, O, Q, and S.
Fix the order, and the corresponding pin names.
Notes:
- The actual values of the pin numbers don't really matter (they just
have to be unique), so the wrong order didn't have any impact,
- Changing the names of the pins is user-visible, but there are no
users in (upstream) DTS files.
Fixes: 4f82e3ee724f1712 ("sh-pfc: Support pins not associated with a GPIO port")
Fixes: 09cc76a95802e87d ("sh-pfc: r8a7778: add HSPI pin groups")
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7778.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7778.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/pfc-r8a7778.c
@@ -1265,8 +1265,8 @@ static const struct sh_pfc_pin pinmux_pi
/* Pins not associated with a GPIO port */
SH_PFC_PIN_NAMED(3, 20, C20),
- SH_PFC_PIN_NAMED(20, 1, T1),
- SH_PFC_PIN_NAMED(25, 2, Y2),
+ SH_PFC_PIN_NAMED(1, 20, A20),
+ SH_PFC_PIN_NAMED(2, 25, B25),
};
/* - macro */
@@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ HSPI_PFC_DAT(hspi1_a, HSPI_CLK1_A, HSPI
HSPI_RX1_A, HSPI_TX1_A);
HSPI_PFC_PIN(hspi1_b, RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 27), RCAR_GP_PIN(0, 26),
- PIN_NUMBER(20, 1), PIN_NUMBER(25, 2));
+ PIN_NUMBER(1, 20), PIN_NUMBER(2, 25));
HSPI_PFC_DAT(hspi1_b, HSPI_CLK1_B, HSPI_CS1_B,
HSPI_RX1_B, HSPI_TX1_B);
