[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120229064633.GA14703@shlinux2.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:34 +0800
From: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@...escale.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
<B29396@...escale.com>, <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
<dongas86@...il.com>, <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
<thomas.abraham@...aro.org>, <tony@...mide.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] pinctrl: API changes to support multiple states
per device
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:27:30PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> The API model is changed from:
>
> p = pinctrl_get(dev, "state1");
> pinctrl_enable(p);
> ...
> pinctrl_disable(p);
> pinctrl_put(p);
> p = pinctrl_get(dev, "state2");
> pinctrl_enable(p);
> ...
> pinctrl_disable(p);
> pinctrl_put(p);
>
> to this:
>
> p = pinctrl_get(dev);
> s1 = pinctrl_lookup_state(p, "state1");
> s2 = pinctrl_lookup_state(p, "state2");
> pinctrl_select_state(p, s1);
> ...
> pinctrl_select_state(p, s2);
> ...
> pinctrl_put(p);
>
> This allows devices to directly transition between states without
> disabling the pin controller programming and put()/get()ing the
> configuration data each time. This model will also better suit pinconf
> programming, which doesn't have a concept of "disable".
>
> The special-case hogging feature of pin controllers is re-written to use
> the regular APIs instead of special-case code. Hence, the pinmux-hogs
> debugfs file is removed; see the top-level pinctrl-handles files for
> equivalent data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
> ---
> v2: Make use of PINCTRL_STATE_DEFAULT, split out some documentation
> cleanup into an earlier patch. Various minor fixes. Fixes due to
> rebasing on updated earlier patches. Remove usecount field from struct
> pinctrl; allow only one concurrent pinctrl_get() per device.
>
Glad to hear this.
The whole patch looks pretty good to me.
A few trivial comments, else
Acked-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>
> +static struct pinctrl *find_pinctrl(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct pinctrl *p;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(p, &pinctrldev_list, node)
s/pinctrldev_list/pinctrl_list ?
> -static void pinctrl_disable_locked(struct pinctrl *p)
> +static int pinctrl_select_state_locked(struct pinctrl *p,
> + struct pinctrl_state *state)
> {
> - struct pinctrl_setting *setting;
> + struct pinctrl_setting *setting, *setting2;
> + int ret;
>
> - if (p == NULL)
> - return;
> + if (p->state == state)
> + return 0;
>
> - if (--p->usecount == 0) {
> - list_for_each_entry(setting, &p->settings, node)
> - pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
> + if (p->state) {
> + /*
> + * The set of groups with a mux configuration in the old state
> + * may not be identical to the set of groups with a mux setting
> + * in the new state. While this might be unusual, it's entirely
> + * possible for the "user"-supplied mapping table to be written
> + * that way. For each group that was configured in the old state
> + * but not in the new state, this code puts that group into a
> + * safe/disabled state.
It means the old state function of some groups may not have been disabled before
enabling the new function mode.
May it be a little error-prone?
Maybe we can not depend on user to disable a function before enable another for
a group when doing pinmux_enable_setting considering they may be different
registers.
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry(setting, &p->state->settings, node) {
> + bool found = false;
> + list_for_each_entry(setting2, &state->settings, node) {
> + if (setting2->group_selector ==
> + setting->group_selector) {
> + found = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (!found)
> + pinmux_disable_setting(setting);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + p->state = state;
> +
> + /* Apply all the settings for the new state */
> + list_for_each_entry(setting, &state->settings, node) {
> + ret = pinmux_enable_setting(setting);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + /* FIXME: Difficult to return to prev state */
> + return ret;
> + }
> }
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /**
Regards
Dong Aisheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists