Re: [PATCH v5 03/13] pinctrl: ingenic: Use C99 initializers in PINCTRL_PIN_GROUP()

[Paul Cercueil]

Hi Andy,

Le lundi 18 décembre 2023 à 12:41 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 03:43:24PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > Le mercredi 13 décembre 2023 à 15:21 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a
> > écrit :
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:55:46AM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > Le lundi 11 décembre 2023 à 20:57 +0200, Andy Shevchenko a
> > > > écrit :
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > -#define INGENIC_PIN_GROUP(name, id, func)		\
> > > > > -	INGENIC_PIN_GROUP_FUNCS(name, id, (void *)(func))
> > > > > +#define INGENIC_PIN_GROUP(_name_, id,
> > > > > func)						\
> > > > > +	{						
> > > > > 	
> > > > > 			\
> > > > > +		.name =
> > > > > _name_,							
> > > > > 	\
> > > > > +		.pins =
> > > > > id##_pins,						
> > > > > 	\
> > > > > +		.num_pins =
> > > > > ARRAY_SIZE(id##_pins),					\
> > > > > +		.data = (void
> > > > > *)func,							\
> > > > > +	}
> > > > 
> > > > This INGENIC_PIN_GROUP() macro doesn't need to be modified,
> > > > does
> > > > it?
> > > 
> > > We can go either way. I prefer to go this way as it reduces level
> > > of
> > > indirections in the macros. It makes code easier to read and
> > > understand.
> > > But if you insist, I can drop that change in next version.
> > 
> > I like the patches to be minimal. But I understand your point of
> > view
> > as well.
> > 
> > If you have to issue a v6, maybe state the reason why you also
> > modify
> > INGENIC_PIN_GROUP() then. But I don't care enough to request a v6
> > just
> > for that.
> > 
> > So:
> > Acked-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> But as I already noted, the series had been applied (by Linus W.)
> and this does not seem to be a critical to fix, do you agree?
> 

Well I only suggested to change the commit message - so no, it is not
critical to fix.

Cheers,
-Paul