lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] drivers: create a pinmux subsystem v3
From
Date
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:58 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> This creates a subsystem for handling of pinmux devices. These are
> devices that enable and disable groups of pins on primarily PGA and
> BGA type of chip packages and common in embedded systems.

Trivia only:

> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
[]
> +int pin_is_valid(int pin)
> +{
> + return pin >= 0 && pin < num_pins;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pin_is_valid);

bool pin_is_valid?

> +/* Deletes a range of pin descriptors */
> +static void pinctrl_free_pindescs(struct pinctrl_pin_desc const *pins,
> + unsigned num_pins)

const struct pinctrl_pin_desc *pins

> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> + struct pin_desc *pindesc;
> +
> + spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + pindesc = radix_tree_lookup(&pin_desc_tree, pins[i].number);
> + if (pindesc != NULL) {
> + radix_tree_delete(&pin_desc_tree, pins[i].number);
> + num_pins --;

No space please

> + }
> + spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + kfree(pindesc);
> + }
> +}

Is it really worthwhile to have spin_lock/unlock in the loop?

> +static int pinctrl_register_one_pin(unsigned number, const char *name)
> +{
> + /* Copy optional basic pin info */
> + if (name) {
> + strncpy(pindesc->name, name, 16);

strlcpy

> + pindesc->name[15] = '\0';
> + }
> +
> + spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + radix_tree_insert(&pin_desc_tree, number, pindesc);
> + num_pins ++;

No space please

> + spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* Passing in 0 num_pins means "sparse" */
> +static int pinctrl_register_pins(struct pinctrl_pin_desc const *pins,
> + unsigned num_descs, unsigned num_pins)
[]
> + * If we are registerering dense pinlists, fill in all holes with

registering

> + * anonymous pins.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> + char pinname[16];
> + struct pin_desc *pindesc;
> +
> + spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + pindesc = radix_tree_lookup(&pin_desc_tree, i);
> + spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + /* Already registered this one, take next */
> + if (pindesc)
> + continue;
> +
> + snprintf(pinname, 15, "anonymous %u", i);
> + pinname[15] = '\0';

strlcpy

> +int pinctrl_register_pins_dense(struct pinctrl_pin_desc const *pins,
> + unsigned num_descs, unsigned num_pins)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + unsigned i;
> +
> + ret = pinctrl_register_pins(pins, num_descs, num_pins);
> + if (ret) {
> + for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> + struct pin_desc *pindesc;
> +
> + spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + pindesc = radix_tree_lookup(&pin_desc_tree, i);
> + if (pindesc != NULL) {
> + radix_tree_delete(&pin_desc_tree, i);
> + num_pins --;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> + kfree(pindesc);
> + }

Second use of this pattern. Maybe use pinctrl_free_pindescs?




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-13 20:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans