Hi Geert,

On Friday 06 March 2015 12:21:29 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 05 March 2015 10:19:33 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

quoted

--- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/sh_pfc.h

@@ -69,9 +69,10 @@ struct pinmux_func {

 };
 
 struct pinmux_cfg_reg {

-     unsigned long reg, reg_width, field_width;
+     unsigned long reg;

How about making reg a u32 ? It won't make a difference in practice on
32-bit systems, but it would be more explicit.

You might have missed this comment.

I intended to, with "reg is used here to store a physical register address",
but probably didn't make it sufficiently clear. Before the advent of PAE
and phys_addr_t, unsigned long was used to store physical addresses.

We could indeed use u32, as the PFC regs are (currently) inside the 32-bit
part of the address space.

Sounds good with me. If you want to make that change as a separate patch,

Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>

for this patch. Otherwise I'll ack v2.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart