Hi Heiko, On 25/06/13 13:56, Heiko Stübner wrote: > As the binding for slew-rate is under discussion and seems to need > more tought it will get removed for now, so it doesn't get an offical
s/tought/thought/ s/offical/official/ > release. > > Therefore remove it again from the only current user, tz1090. > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <he...@sntech.de> > --- <snip> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c > index 12e4808..d4f12cc 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090-pdc.c > @@ -809,11 +809,6 @@ static int tz1090_pdc_pinconf_group_reg(struct > pinctrl_dev *pctldev, > *width = 1; > *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > break; > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > - *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_SR_S; > - *width = 1; > - *map = tz1090_pdc_boolean_map; > - break; > case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: > *shift = REG_GPIO_CONTROL2_PDC_DR_S; > *width = 2; > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c > index 02ff3a2..4edae08 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tz1090.c > @@ -1834,11 +1834,6 @@ static int tz1090_pinconf_group_reg(struct pinctrl_dev > *pctldev, > *width = 1; > *map = tz1090_boolean_map; > break; > - case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE: > - *reg = REG_PINCTRL_SR; > - *width = 1; > - *map = tz1090_boolean_map; > - break; > case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH: > *reg = REG_PINCTRL_DR; > *width = 2; > I don't see the harm in keeping the handling of PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE, since PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE is still present and you only seem to be removing the device tree bindings (which is the only important bit from the DT ABI point of view). Cheers James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
