[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <051069C10411E24D9749790C498526FA1BDE034D@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:24:10 +0000
From: "Sherman Yin" <syin@...adcom.com>
To: "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc: "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
Subject: RE: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl tree with Linus'
tree
>I made a bit different fix, I just lock the spinlock around the entire
>loop, as this is not doing any delays or anything like that and
>just hammer a few registers with the settings, it makes sense to
>have that inside a single lock:
Hmm, I fixed this the first time I ported over to LinusW's devel tree,
but when I rebased on Sunday, the spin lock commit seemed to be
reverted or gone.
Note the following return in between the locking and unlocking -
need an unlock there?
> + case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_STRENGTH:
> + strength = pinconf_to_config_argument(configs[i]);
> + if (strength > 40)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + /*
> + * We convert from mA to what the register expects:
> + * 0: 10mA
> + * 1: 20mA
> + * 2: 30mA
> + * 3: 40mA
> + */
Regards,
Sherman
--
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