@@ -1290,12 +1290,14 @@ static struct npcm8xx_func npcm8xx_funcs[] = {
};
#define NPCM8XX_PINCFG(a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q) \
- [a] { .fn0 = fn_ ## b, .reg0 = NPCM8XX_GCR_ ## c, .bit0 = d, \
+ [a] = { \
+ .flag = q, \
+ .fn0 = fn_ ## b, .reg0 = NPCM8XX_GCR_ ## c, .bit0 = d, \
.fn1 = fn_ ## e, .reg1 = NPCM8XX_GCR_ ## f, .bit1 = g, \
.fn2 = fn_ ## h, .reg2 = NPCM8XX_GCR_ ## i, .bit2 = j, \
.fn3 = fn_ ## k, .reg3 = NPCM8XX_GCR_ ## l, .bit3 = m, \
.fn4 = fn_ ## n, .reg4 = NPCM8XX_GCR_ ## o, .bit4 = p, \
- .flag = q }
+ }
/* Drive strength controlled by NPCM8XX_GP_N_ODSC */
#define DRIVE_STRENGTH_LO_SHIFT 8
Sparse is not happy about implementation of the NPCM8XX_PINCFG() pinctrl-npcm8xx.c:1314:9: warning: obsolete array initializer, use C99 syntax pinctrl-npcm8xx.c:1315:9: warning: obsolete array initializer, use C99 syntax ... pinctrl-npcm8xx.c:1412:9: warning: obsolete array initializer, use C99 syntax pinctrl-npcm8xx.c:1413:9: warning: too many warnings which uses index-based assignment in a wrong way, i.e. it missed the equal sign and hence the index is simply ignored, while the entries are indexed naturally. This is not a problem as the pin numbering repeats the natural order, but it might be in case of shuffling the entries. Fix this by adding missed equal sign and reformat a bit for better readability. Fixes: acf4884a5717 ("pinctrl: nuvoton: add NPCM8XX pinctrl and GPIO driver") Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/pinctrl/nuvoton/pinctrl-npcm8xx.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)