[PATCH] pinctrl: imx5: start numbering pad from 0

[Dong Aisheng]

On 14 August 2012 03:26, Troy Kisky <troy.kisky at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/2012 7:47 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>
>> Unlike imx6q pinctrl driver that starts nubmering pad from 0, imx5
>> pinctrl drivers number pad from 1.  It causes problem/confusion when
>> driver accesses imx51_pinctrl_pads array using pin ID as the index.
>>
>> Change imx51_pads and imx53_pads numbering start from 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c |  490
>> +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx53.c |  402 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>>   2 files changed, 446 insertions(+), 446 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>> index 9fd0216..fb84689 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx51.c
>> @@ -23,251 +23,251 @@
>>   #include "pinctrl-imx.h"
>>     enum imx51_pads {
>> -       MX51_PAD_EIM_D16 = 1,
>> -       MX51_PAD_EIM_D17 = 2,
...
>> +       MX53_PAD_GPIO_19 = 0,
>> +       MX53_PAD_KEY_COL0 = 1,
>
>
> Why not skip the = xx altogether??  The enum will auto-increment.
Personally i'd like to keep it.
The reason is that pin id is basic property of a pin per pinctrl
subsystem's design
so explicitly define it looks more clear to me and i'm not sure but
it's possible that
the pin id may be used in device tree in the future(maybe some other
soc already uses it),
And defining it has no big harming.

Regards
Dong Aisheng