[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52091DA9.7080200@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:38:49 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Sonic Zhang <sonic.adi@...il.com>
CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinmux: Don't free pins requested by other
devices in pinmux_disable_setting.
On 08/12/2013 12:10 AM, Sonic Zhang wrote:
> From: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@...log.com>
>
> One peripheral may share part of its pins with the 2nd
> peripheral and the other pins with the 3rd. If it requests all pins
> when part of them has already be requested and owned by the 2nd
> peripheral, this request fails and pinmux_disable_setting() is called.
> The pinmux_disable_setting() frees all pins of the first peripheral
> without checking if the pin is owned by itself or the 2nd, which
> results in the malfunction of the 2nd peripheral driver.
This patch looks conceptually fine at a quick glance, but ...
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.h b/drivers/pinctrl/core.h
> @@ -154,6 +154,7 @@ struct pin_desc {
> const char *mux_owner;
> const struct pinctrl_setting_mux *mux_setting;
> const char *gpio_owner;
> + const struct pinctrl_setting *owning_setting
... I think you can use the existing "mux_setting" field instead of
adding a new "owning_setting" field.
--
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