[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d1426fbc-bc82-89cd-d08d-242b16d2c99d@lechnology.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:06:18 -0600
From: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when
bits_per_mux != 0
On 01/22/2018 08:49 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:03 AM, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com> wrote:
>> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
>> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
>> pins per register feature was added.
>>
>> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure
>> multiple pins of different modules")
>
> One line?
One line is more important that wrapping to 75 chars?
>
>> + byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> + offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
>> + pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
>> + pcs->bits_per_pin;
>
> Sounds like playing around pretty well defined macro and functions,
> e.g. DIV_ROUND_UP(), round_up().
>
I admit, I just copied existing code (which may be a reason to leave this the
way it is). But, I only see once place to do this:
offset = round_down(byte_num, mux_bytes);
Did I miss another?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists