Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] pinctrl: mediatek: paris: Support generic
 PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH_UA
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@mediatek.com>,
        Guodong Liu <guodong.liu@mediatek.com>
References: <20220111112244.1483783-1-wenst@chromium.org>
 <20220111112244.1483783-8-wenst@chromium.org>
From:   AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Message-ID: <8a5aba82-d9e3-25d8-f34e-7182586d8ce4@collabora.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 14:42:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220111112244.1483783-8-wenst@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Il 11/01/22 12:22, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
> Some of the MediaTek chips that utilize the Paris pinctrl driver library
> support a lower drive strength (<= 1mA) than the standard drive strength
> settings (2~16 mA) on certain pins. This was previously supported by the
> custom MTK_PIN_CONFIG_DRV_ADV parameter along with the
> "mediatek,drive-strength-adv" device tree property.
> 
> The drive strength values for this hardware are 125, 250, 500, and 1000 mA,
> and can be readily described by the existing "drive-strength-microamp",
> which then gets parsed by the generic pinconf library into the parameter
> PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH_UA.
> 
> Add support for PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH_UA while keeping the old
> custom parameter around for backward compatibility.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>
> ---
> 
> The indentation in the switch/case blocks is getting somewhat out of
> control. I also have some cleanup changes to reverse the logic of the
> if/break statements. Not sure if it should be done before or after this
> patch though.

Hello Chen-Yu,


this commit is so nice that:

- My heart says that it's fine as it is, but

- My brain says that it makes a lot more sense if you push the cleanup

changes to reverse that logic before pushing this commit, as to reduce the

count of changed lines (hence, to reduce some noise)...


...so please, can you rebase this commit over the cleanups?


Thanks,

- Angelo