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: <20230512141755.1712358-1-eblanc@baylibre.com> <20230512141755.1712358-3-eblanc@baylibre.com>
 <ZF5yb4DbVDbfxVU4@surfacebook> <CSNQ2RRG7XDC.164H6P357UHSR@burritosblues>
 <CAHp75VdNgBv5yVTXzDpY3rrF31p=p99cfXdEs0q7m8VmLLJwbg@mail.gmail.com> <CSOGQIRNP61G.1Q2A4ZXB43YYQ@burritosblues>
In-Reply-To: <CSOGQIRNP61G.1Q2A4ZXB43YYQ@burritosblues>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 16:51:23 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc-c=VU5Bfy5097z4wm43=bZ4LG83QBYV19YOrC7zSGag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl
 and GPIOs
To:     Esteban Blanc <eblanc@baylibre.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58=E2=80=AFPM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@baylibre.com=
> wrote:
> 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.=
com> 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=
_inst))
> > > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF                             0x31
> > > > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)  (TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CO=
NF + (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

I'm not sure I understand what 'context' you are talking about.
This is pretty normal to have two kind of definitions (depending on the cas=
e):
1/

  #define FOO_1 ...
  #define FOO_2 ...

and so on

2/

  #define FOO(x)  (... (x) ...)


Having a mix of them seems quite unusual.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko