Re: [PATCH 03/11] pinctrl: mvebu: kirkwood pinctrl driver

[Sebastian Hesselbarth]

On 08/27/2012 03:43 PM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 06:49, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth
> > <sebastian.hesselbarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > (...)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-kirkwood.c
> > > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-kirkwood.c
> > > +static struct mvebu_pinctrl_soc_info kirkwood_pinctrl_info;
> > > +
> > > +static struct of_device_id kirkwood_pinctrl_of_match[] __devinitdata
> > > = {
> > > + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6180-pinctrl",
> > > + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6180 },
> > > + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6190-pinctrl",
> > > + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6190 },
> > > + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6192-pinctrl",
> > > + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6192 },
> > > + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6281-pinctrl",
> > > + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6281 },
> > > + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6282-pinctrl",
> > > + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6282 },
> > > + { }
> > > +};
> >
> > I'm thinking this variant should maybe be an enum... unless it is
> > strongly established somewhere in Orion/Marvell stuff.
> >
> > > +static int __devinit kirkwood_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device
> > > *pdev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct mvebu_pinctrl_soc_info *soc = &kirkwood_pinctrl_info;
> > > + const struct of_device_id *match =
> > > + of_match_device(kirkwood_pinctrl_of_match, &pdev->dev);
> > > +
> > > + if (match) {
> > > + soc->variant = (unsigned)match->data & 0xff;
> > > + switch (soc->variant) {
> > > + case VARIANT_MV88F6180:
> > > + soc->controls = mv88f6180_mpp_controls;
> > > + soc->ncontrols = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6180_mpp_controls);
> > > + soc->modes = mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes;
> > > + soc->nmodes = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes);
> > > + soc->gpioranges = mv88f6180_gpio_ranges;
> > > + soc->ngpioranges = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6180_gpio_ranges);
> > > + break;
> > > + case VARIANT_MV88F6190:
> > > + case VARIANT_MV88F6192:
> > > + soc->controls = mv88f619x_mpp_controls;
> > > + soc->ncontrols = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f619x_mpp_controls);
> > > + soc->modes = mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes;
> > > + soc->nmodes = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes);
> > > + soc->gpioranges = mv88f619x_gpio_ranges;
> > > + soc->ngpioranges = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f619x_gpio_ranges);
> > > + break;
> > > + case VARIANT_MV88F6281:
> > > + case VARIANT_MV88F6282:
> > > + soc->controls = mv88f628x_mpp_controls;
> > > + soc->ncontrols = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f628x_mpp_controls);
> > > + soc->modes = mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes;
> > > + soc->nmodes = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes);
> > > + soc->gpioranges = mv88f628x_gpio_ranges;
> > > + soc->ngpioranges = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f628x_gpio_ranges);
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + pdev->dev.platform_data = soc;
> > > + }
> > > + return mvebu_pinctrl_probe(pdev);
> > > +}
>
> Why not have structures defining the soc-> parameters and use that in the
> of_match list?

Ben,

functionally it is equivalent and IMHO using soc structs doesn't improve
readability here. I there any other good reason to have structs for each
soc?

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/