[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/20] pinctrl: Assume map table entries can't have a NULL name field
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Dong Aisheng <> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Linus Walleij <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stephen Warren <> wrote:
>>> pinctrl_register_mappings() already requires that every mapping table
>>> entry have a non-NULL name field.
>>> Logically, this makes sense too; drivers should always request a specific
>>> named state so they know what they're getting. Relying on getting the
>>> first mentioned state in the mapping table is error-prone, and a nasty
>>> special case to implement, given that a given the mapping table may define
>>> multiple states for a device.
>>> Update a few places in the code and documentation that still allowed for
>>> NULL name fields.
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <>
>> This causes a regression on U300 and most certainly on the Sirf Prima II
>> as well. The U300 can be fixed up as per below:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-u300/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-u300/core.c
>> index bb1034f..66555d7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-u300/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-u300/core.c
>> @@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ static int __init u300_pinctrl_fetch(void)
>>                struct pinctrl *p;
>>                int ret;
>> -               p = pinctrl_get(u300_mux_hogs[i].dev, NULL);
>> +               p = pinctrl_get(u300_mux_hogs[i].dev, u300_mux_hogs[i].name);
>>                if (IS_ERR(p)) {
>>                        pr_err("u300: could not get pinmux hog %s\n",
>>                               u300_mux_hogs[i].name);
>> The drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c asks for it's UART pinctrl like
>> this:
>> sirfport->p = pinctrl_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>> I don't know quite what to encode in there, if "deafult" is sensible
>> we might just
>> #define PIN_MAP_NAME_DEFAULT "default"
>> In <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> and <linux/pinctrl/machine.h> alike,
>> maybe in some <linux/pinctrl/mapnames.h> that both of these
>> include?
> I feel a little strange to put such thing in common code.
> Personally i still like the original way you did.

I think with this patch alone it doesn't make much sense
to enforce the request to specify a certain map, it only
appears further ahead as we start to support states.

Let's look through the entire patch series so as to get
the bigger picture.

Linus Walleij
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-21 14:15    [W:0.087 / U:16.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site