[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZbZF6pHdfgrFqf-Uuoipv=vmK7Y4CCqPjj21QYN-zNfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:54:32 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Sonic Zhang <sonic.adi@...il.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: pinmux: Don't free pins requested by other
devices in pinmux_disable_setting.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Sonic Zhang <sonic.adi@...il.com> 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@...log.com>
Hm it makes some sense so patch applied.
That said I think we currently have drivers where a pin group
mapped to a certain function in a certain setting *usually*
don't overlap with pins in another group used with another
function, and having it so seems racy, i.e. it will be some
first-come-first-serve effect.
I will add a warning print.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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