Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with
mutiple variant and same function.
such as:
on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c
SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2),
SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 |
PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20),
SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)),
it would always match to the first variant function
(PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)
so we should add variant compare on it.
Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
@@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl,
struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions;
while (func->name) {
- if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name))
+ if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) {
+ if (!(func->variant) ||
+ (func->variant & pctl->variant))
return func;
-
+ }
func++;
}
}
--
2.7.4
Hi,
Thanks for your patch!
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:47:48PM +0800, hao_zhang wrote:
> Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with
> mutiple variant and same function.
>
> such as:
> on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c
>
> SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
> PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 |
> PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
> PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)),
>
> it would always match to the first variant function
> (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)
>
> so we should add variant compare on it.
>
> Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl,
> struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions;
>
> while (func->name) {
> - if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name))
> + if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) {
> + if (!(func->variant) ||
> + (func->variant & pctl->variant))
I guess it would be better to have:
if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) &&
(!func->variant || (func->variant & pctl->variant)))
Once fixed,
Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:47 PM, hao_zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with
> mutiple variant and same function.
>
> such as:
> on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c
>
> SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
> PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 |
> PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20),
> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
> PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)),
>
> it would always match to the first variant function
> (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)
>
> so we should add variant compare on it.
>
> Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <[email protected]>
Please resend patch with Maxime's suggestions fixed and his
ACK added so I can apply it.
I can take this patch separatelt, it does not need to be part of
the PWM series.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
2017-12-13 23:45 GMT+08:00 Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:47:48PM +0800, hao_zhang wrote:
>> Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with
>> mutiple variant and same function.
>>
>> such as:
>> on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c
>>
>> SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2),
>> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
>> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
>> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
>> PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 |
>> PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20),
>> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
>> PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)),
>>
>> it would always match to the first variant function
>> (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)
>>
>> so we should add variant compare on it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
>> index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
>> @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl,
>> struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions;
>>
>> while (func->name) {
>> - if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name))
>> + if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) {
>> + if (!(func->variant) ||
>> + (func->variant & pctl->variant))
>
> I guess it would be better to have:
> if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) &&
> (!func->variant || (func->variant & pctl->variant)))
It would over 80 characters, can i change it by this ?
if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) &&
(func->variant & pctl->variant ||
!func->variant))
>
> Once fixed,
> Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks!
> Maxime
>
> --
> Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> http://free-electrons.com
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 07:08:53PM +0800, Hao Zhang wrote:
> 2017-12-13 23:45 GMT+08:00 Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:47:48PM +0800, hao_zhang wrote:
> >> Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with
> >> mutiple variant and same function.
> >>
> >> such as:
> >> on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c
> >>
> >> SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2),
> >> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"),
> >> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"),
> >> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
> >> PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 |
> >> PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20),
> >> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */
> >> PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)),
> >>
> >> it would always match to the first variant function
> >> (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20)
> >>
> >> so we should add variant compare on it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> >> index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> >> @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl,
> >> struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions;
> >>
> >> while (func->name) {
> >> - if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name))
> >> + if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) {
> >> + if (!(func->variant) ||
> >> + (func->variant & pctl->variant))
> >
> > I guess it would be better to have:
> > if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) &&
> > (!func->variant || (func->variant & pctl->variant)))
>
> It would over 80 characters, can i change it by this ?
> if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) &&
> (func->variant & pctl->variant ||
> !func->variant))
It feels more natural to have !func->variant first, but feel free to
have it split that way yes.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com