Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220712195043.3842081-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20220712195043.3842081-2-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220712195043.3842081-2-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 11:53:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VepPJXCiwW+Ztw6awoXwL-d3Sr=TF8xkLyg9uR-bzFxRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Fix pincfg for lan966x
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Cc:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        kavyasree.kotagiri@microchip.com,
        Colin Foster <colin.foster@in-advantage.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
        Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:46 PM Horatiu Vultur
<horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> wrote:
>
> The blamed commit introduce support for lan966x which use the same
> pinconf_ops as sparx5. The problem is that pinconf_ops is specific to
> sparx5. More precisely the offset of the bits in the pincfg register are
> different and also lan966x doesn't have support for
> PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE.
>
> Fix this by making pinconf_ops more generic such that it can be also
> used by lan966x. This is done by introducing 'ocelot_pincfg_data' which
> contains the offset and what is supported for each SOC.

Looks better, my comments below.

...

> +               const struct ocelot_pincfg_data *opd = info->pincfg_data;

This one...

...

> @@ -1425,17 +1436,20 @@ static int ocelot_pinconf_get(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,

...can also be applied here...

...

>                 case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN:
>                         arg = (param == PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE) ? 0 :
> -                       (param == PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP) ? BIAS_PU_BIT :
> -                       BIAS_PD_BIT;
> +                       (param == PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP) ? info->pincfg_data->pu_bit :
> +                       info->pincfg_data->pd_bit;

...which in particular may help to sort out this indentation mess.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko