Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:24:53 +0100 | From | Nicolas Ferre <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |