linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: select_state: don't call pinctrl_free

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5155BCAC.5050504@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:09:16 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>
CC:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: select_state: don't call pinctrl_free_setting
 on error

On 03/29/2013 03:03 AM, Richard Genoud wrote:
> As Stephen Warren pointed out, pinctrl_free_setting() was called instead
> of pinmux_disable_setting() on error.
> In this error code, we want to call pinmux_disable_setting() where
> pinmux_enable_setting() was called.

> And when pinconf_apply_setting() was called, we can't do much to undo
> the pin muxing (the closest thing I can think about for "unmuxing" a pin
> is muxing it as GPIO input).

That's likely typically what pinmux_disable_setting() does, or perhaps
it'll select a function for that pin/group that is guaranteed not to
conflict with any possible other mux configuration.

Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
--
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/