From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933435AbbCPW2d (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:28:33 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:49904 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932356AbbCPW2V (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:28:21 -0400 Message-ID: <55075901.1010100@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 16:28:17 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Agner , linus.walleij@linaro.org CC: thierry.reding@gmail.com, gnurou@gmail.com, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: tegra: use signed bitfields for optional fields References: <1426542154-31072-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> In-Reply-To: <1426542154-31072-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/16/2015 03:42 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > Optional fields are set to -1 by various preprocessor macros. Make > sure the fields can actually store them. This seems fine to me. I suppose there is a small risk that the old code let some invalid configurations pass whereas this new code will reject them and hence not program any later pinmux configurations in the "list" in DT. However, I suspect the risk is quite small and won't be an issue. Acked-by: Stephen Warren I also tested this on Beaver, Dalmore, and Jetson TK1 using Paul Walmsley's automated test system, and saw no issues, so: Tested-by: Stephen Warren