linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] ARM: pinctrl: sunxi-pinctrl: fix pin funtion can not be match correctly.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAJeuY79_w+8Gv=jRxK4tajiecNSAZkMGYY_d7PJmsjyOZHPkJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 19:08:53 +0800
From:   Hao Zhang <hao5781286@...il.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Allwinner sunXi SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] ARM: pinctrl: sunxi-pinctrl: fix pin funtion can
 not be match correctly.

2017-12-13 23:45 GMT+08:00 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:47:48PM +0800, hao_zhang wrote:
>> Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with
>> mutiple variant and same function.
>>
>> such as:
>> on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c
>>
>> SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2),
>>               SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
>>               SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
>>               SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm",    /* PWM0 */
>>                       PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 |
>>                       PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20),
>>               SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm",    /* PWM0 */
>>                       PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)),
>>
>> it would always match to the first variant function
>> (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)
>>
>> so we should add variant compare on it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <hao5781286@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
>> index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
>> @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl,
>>                       struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions;
>>
>>                       while (func->name) {
>> -                             if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name))
>> +                             if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) {
>> +                                     if (!(func->variant) ||
>> +                                        (func->variant & pctl->variant))
>
> I guess it would be better to have:
>         if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) &&
>             (!func->variant || (func->variant & pctl->variant)))

It would over 80 characters, can i change it by this ?
if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) &&
         (func->variant & pctl->variant ||
          !func->variant))

>
> Once fixed,
> Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
>
> Thanks!
> Maxime
>
> --
> Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> http://free-electrons.com