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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 11:58:57 +0200
Message-Id: <CSOGQIRNP61G.1Q2A4ZXB43YYQ@burritosblues>
From:   "Esteban Blanc" <eblanc@baylibre.com>
To:     "Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        <broonie@kernel.org>, <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <jpanis@baylibre.com>, <jneanne@baylibre.com>,
        <aseketeli@baylibre.com>, <sterzik@ti.com>, <u-kumar1@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl
 and GPIOs
References: <20230512141755.1712358-1-eblanc@baylibre.com>
 <20230512141755.1712358-3-eblanc@baylibre.com>
 <ZF5yb4DbVDbfxVU4@surfacebook> <CSNQ2RRG7XDC.164H6P357UHSR@burritosblues>
 <CAHp75VdNgBv5yVTXzDpY3rrF31p=p99cfXdEs0q7m8VmLLJwbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdNgBv5yVTXzDpY3rrF31p=p99cfXdEs0q7m8VmLLJwbg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue May 16, 2023 at 6:48 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:05=E2=80=AFPM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@baylibre.co=
m> wrote:
> > On Fri May 12, 2023 at 7:07 PM CEST,  wrote:
> > > Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti:

...

> > > > -#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)          (0x31 + (gpio_i=
nst))
> > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF                             0x31
> > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)  (TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF=
 + (gpio_inst))
> > >
> > > Why? The original code with parameter 0 will issue the same.
> >
> > I felt that replacing 0x31 with a constant would make the computation
> > in TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONFIG more understandable. What do you think?
>
> The question is why that register is so special that you need to have
> it as a constant explicitly?

It is not special, it's just the first one of the serie of config
registers. I felt like just having 0x31 without context was a bit weird

Best regards,

--=20
Esteban Blanc
BayLibre