On 31.03.2016 11:04, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 06:05:30PM +0300, Cristina Ciocan wrote: >> + PINCTRL_PIN(55, "GPIO_S0_SC[055]"), >> + PINCTRL_PIN(56, "GPIO_S0_SC[056]"), >> + PINCTRL_PIN(57, "GPIO_S0_SC[057]"), >> + PINCTRL_PIN(58, "GPIO_S0_SC[058]"), >> + PINCTRL_PIN(59, "GPIO_S0_SC[059]"), >> + PINCTRL_PIN(60, "GPIO_S0_SC[060]"), >> + PINCTRL_PIN(61, "GPIO_S0_SC[061]"), > > You still have these (and all similar [number]) things. IMO this looks > better: > > PINCTRL_PIN(55, "GPIO_S0_SC55"), > PINCTRL_PIN(56, "GPIO_S0_SC56"), > PINCTRL_PIN(57, "GPIO_S0_SC57"), > PINCTRL_PIN(58, "GPIO_S0_SC58"), > PINCTRL_PIN(59, "GPIO_S0_SC59"), > PINCTRL_PIN(60, "GPIO_S0_SC60"), > PINCTRL_PIN(61, "GPIO_S0_SC61"),
Will fix in a new patch set, for consistency. Thank you. > > but I don't really care that much ;-) > > My ack still applies to the whole series. >
