[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F57E3D2.40405@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:40:18 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rajendra.nayak@...aro.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...vell.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: support pinconfig on the U300
On 03/06/2012 03:05 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>
> This adds pin configuration support for the U300 driver pair,
> we can now read out the biasing and drive mode in debugfs and
> configure it using the new configuration API.
> +int u300_pin_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> + unsigned pin,
> + unsigned long config)
> +{
> + struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range = u300_match_gpio_range(pin);
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!range)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* Note: none of these configurations take any argument */
> + ret = u300_gpio_config_set(range->gc,
> + (pin - range->pin_base + range->base),
> + to_config_param(config));
I'm a little confused here; the documentation for most of the
PIN_CONFIG_* parameters that this function is passed does explicitly
document that there is an associated argument value. For example,
IN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP is coupled with the pull up resistance in Ohms.
Shouldn't this code extract the argument and validate that it's a
supported value for the HW?
--
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