lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/11] pinctrl: mvebu: fix misdesigned resource allocation
Dear Sebastian Hesselbarth,

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:34:10 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign,
> as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource.
> This moves resource allocation from mvebu_pinctrl_probe to SoC specific
> _probe functions and passes the base address to common pinctrl driver
> instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>

I definitely agree with that: I had the same problem several months ago
when I started doing the pinctrl driver for Orion5x, which has a
non-linear MPP register set.

However, I'd like this to go a little bit further if possible. See
below.


> - return mvebu_pinctrl_probe(pdev);
> + return mvebu_pinctrl_probe(pdev, base);

I think there is no need to pass "base" to mvebu_pinctrl_probe(). The
only reason we have this is because the base gets stored in the
mvebu_pinctrl structure so that the mvebu_common_mpp_get() and
mvebu_common_mpp_set() functions that are the default behavior
for mvebu_pinconf_group_get() and mvebu_pinconf_group_set() work
properly.

Shouldn't we turn these functions mvebu_common_mpp_get() and
mvebu_common_mpp_set() into helper functions, accessible from the
per-SoC pinctrl drivers, so that they can easily implement their
->mpp_get() and ->mpp_set() callbacks?

This way, the "base" thing is completely owned by the per-SoC driver,
which would be more logical I believe.

Thanks!

Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-27 16:21    [W:0.429 / U:1.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site