From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9247EC433EF for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233699AbhLNRSX (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:18:23 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44704 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236388AbhLNRSW (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:18:22 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F55FC061574; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:18:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id y12so64601258eda.12; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:18:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n4k5xaxFhaWmmMpFWuwoV5BzpXXgW4I+HqRbm5rb7jQ=; b=E/0G7D28L5ngV0FeoItTWxWCu93mlXAxXRQGbhVuVR/4XZx1fRJ30udAun2qn4uj5G x+WdA2mCOnVS9EBKt3++NrkzRMRzd1225YRW0PXZuPOX/hyWYE3vt4VZPBZHAALjIoLl 3qjAFrCGDteLu5JFgajrUCBMaZsMiOI4N6WlGy12nTIlbmZmp14zXehZA7xnZyYTG16T uF/IDmhPRBcENwdV7m8w6edfxhjEqYoDmo8VbI/v+WvFtPdW7GtUbevbwomTgfHUdDpG dXY6LzDz4Ap5dlYCrL4K49eRnqBqBBq0osDjRwUPt+EZIRVkG0MvSFQLqoboygwLvfXl 0q2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n4k5xaxFhaWmmMpFWuwoV5BzpXXgW4I+HqRbm5rb7jQ=; b=hemOKwTgswOxM9CnV9j0C3AufB7oVB6VFv8ivrr4m2BHurWjQRlFJ2YZo4sgHlcL8C 5KGN1f7AtlXe4GpMUDVZiWm6LthU/fGF139H0nk1B915w9iqeNAOeg5lGBAx1EKBg+9p RKTZy0GRH/St3CLFIUEYH3tzL68IYvZZnuvEx1+i3/Htdzlec51jwPftqiCmiZPpXWaw 8FIQt8G2dnrojCistUZfDQnACbTx0KBEdOO4bkmBn+++eW8x7pszzu5l4wy51ZDbycjT CNzlbxRaVJ7S7p3KN0M8+JqAoLEyBUEk8rQlvhV8+AjMdDIhe0AhCComwuFU+tGTth8S Uwmg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530HfrqMQR9lDDRiPfLf1VXyhZL9f+XaDOeq51spKSqwNUyXKkOl LQLaCvecvWgNiFiqp2H41Yu6QzvW3CR6pvNNlDg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvpULuko8jJTmI6gtokS4SL3ehpvJGK6X1x3V2r6BF2DkuActxc/xuzD9om2ud1n0bwycObZY3BBBvqdpIxMI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:af1a:: with SMTP id lx26mr7201191ejb.44.1639502300844; Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:18:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1638891339-21806-1-git-send-email-quic_srivasam@quicinc.com> <1638891339-21806-4-git-send-email-quic_srivasam@quicinc.com> <0f6621e5-f014-27c9-be8b-6c32ab994304@quicinc.com> In-Reply-To: <0f6621e5-f014-27c9-be8b-6c32ab994304@quicinc.com> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:16:50 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] pinctrl: qcom: Extract chip specific LPASS LPI code To: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu Cc: Andy Gross , Bjorn Andersson , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Rob Herring , plai@codeaurora.org, Banajit Goswami , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Srinivas Kandagatla , rohitkr@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, ALSA Development Mailing List , devicetree , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Stephen Boyd , judyhsiao@chromium.org, Linus Walleij , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Venkata Prasad Potturu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 7:15 PM Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu wrote: > On 12/8/2021 11:58 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > >> +#define NO_SLEW -1 > > Naming sucks for the header. > > > > LPI_NO_SLEW ? > > Actually it's already mainline code. Just these patches are > rearrangement of old code. > > still do you suggest to change? I would, but this means it should be in a separate change. ... > >> +struct lpi_pingroup { > >> + const char *name; > >> + const unsigned int *pins; > >> + unsigned int npins; > >> + unsigned int pin; > >> + /* Bit offset in slew register for SoundWire pins only */ > >> + int slew_offset; > >> + unsigned int *funcs; > >> + unsigned int nfuncs; > >> +}; > > Are you going to convert this to use struct group_desc? Any comments on this? It sounds like further improvements. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko