Re: [PATCH v1 02/10] pinctrl: alderlake: Switch to INTEL_GPP() macro

[Mika Westerberg]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 05:27:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 12:55:35PM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:51:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:50 PM Mika Westerberg
> > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:40:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > Replace custom macro with the recently defined INTEL_GPP().
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > > > -#define ADL_GPP(r, s, e, g)                              \
> > > > > > > - {                                               \
> > > > > > > -         .reg_num = (r),                         \
> > > > > > > -         .base = (s),                            \
> > > > > > > -         .size = ((e) - (s) + 1),                \
> > > > > > > -         .gpio_base = (g),                       \
> > > > > > > - }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder if simply doing this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define ADL_GPP(r, s, e, g) INTEL_GPP(r, s, e, g)
> > > > >
> > > > > We can, but it will give a couple of lines in each driver still be left.
> > > > > Do you think it's better?
> > > >
> > > > I think that's better because it is less changed lines but I'm fine either
> > > > way.
> > > 
> > > Okay, I will try it and see how it looks like and then I'll either
> > > send a v2 or ask for a tag for this one. Sounds good?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> After more thinking I guess I want it as is (here in v1). In cases
> when we define some parameters differently it will make sense to have
> an intermediate definition, but here. Can you give your Ack, please?

Okay sure,

Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>