On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:45:02PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:

quoted

imx27 pincontrol driver using the imx1 core driver. The DT bindings are
similar to other imx pincontrol drivers.

Signed-off-by: Markus Pargmann <redacted>
---

[...]

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx27.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx27.c

[...]

quoted

+	MX27_PAD_ATA_DATA15 = PAD_ID(PF, 23),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED15 = PAD_ID(PF, 24),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED16 = PAD_ID(PF, 25),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED17 = PAD_ID(PF, 26),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED18 = PAD_ID(PF, 27),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED19 = PAD_ID(PF, 28),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED20 = PAD_ID(PF, 29),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED21 = PAD_ID(PF, 30),
+	MX27_PAD_UNUSED22 = PAD_ID(PF, 31),

No PF24-PF31 pads in CPU.
Is it worth it to have these definitions?

I think it's better for completeness. As every port has the registers to
store the states for 32 pads, I would prefer to keep UNUSED definitions.

Regards,

Markus

---

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |