lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] pinctrl: at91: initialize config parameter to 0
On 07/12/2013 14:08, Alexandre Belloni :
> When passing a not initialized config parameter, at91_pinconf_get() would return
> a bogus value. Fix that by initializing it to zero before using it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
> index 6446dc804aa7..b0b78f3468ae 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
> @@ -722,7 +722,8 @@ static int at91_pinconf_get(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> unsigned pin;
> int div;
>
> - dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s:%d, pin_id=%d, config=0x%lx", __func__, __LINE__, pin_id, *config);
> + *config = 0;
> + dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s:%d, pin_id=%d", __func__, __LINE__, pin_id);
> pio = pin_to_controller(info, pin_to_bank(pin_id));
> pin = pin_id % MAX_NB_GPIO_PER_BANK;

Beyond this patch, I must say that I am puzzled by this function.

What I read from the prototype documentation and what I see in different
implementations is different...

Linus, can we have a review of this function because it seems not in
line with what is used for u300 (but on the other hand looks like the
what is returned by pinctrl-exynos5440.c driver for example).

What would be the consequences if we change this function's behavior: I
mean use of -EINVAL for pin configuration "available but disabled" as
said in include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf.h?

Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-09 10:01    [W:0.144 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site