Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:12:08 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/20] pinctrl: Assume map table entries can't have a NULL name field | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> 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 <swarren@nvidia.com> >> >> 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.
Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |