Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:26:34 +0100 | From | Sebastian Hesselbarth <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/11] pinctrl: mvebu: fix misdesigned resource allocation |
| |
On 01/27/14 15:45, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > 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.
Agreed.
>> - 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?
Sounds reasonable to do so. I have a look at removing the base address from common.c completely.
Sebastian
> This way, the "base" thing is completely owned by the per-SoC driver, > which would be more logical I believe.
| |