2023-10-06 13:01:52

by Mateusz Majewski

Subject: [PATCH 1/4] pinctrl: samsung: defer pinctrl_enable

dev_pinctrl_register function immediately enables the pinctrl subsystem,
which is unpreferable in general, since drivers might be unable to
handle calls immediately. Hence devm_pinctrl_register_and_init, which
does not call pinctrl_enable, is preferred.

In case of our driver using the old function does not seem to be
problematic for now, but will become an issue when we postpone parts of
pinctrl initialization in a future commit, and it is a good idea to move
off a deprecated-ish function anyway.

Signed-off-by: Mateusz Majewski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
index e54847040b4a..e496af72a587 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
@@ -904,11 +904,11 @@ static int samsung_pinctrl_register(struct platform_device *pdev,
if (ret)
return ret;

- drvdata->pctl_dev = devm_pinctrl_register(&pdev->dev, ctrldesc,
- drvdata);
- if (IS_ERR(drvdata->pctl_dev)) {
+ ret = devm_pinctrl_register_and_init(&pdev->dev, ctrldesc, drvdata,
+ &drvdata->pctl_dev);
+ if (ret) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not register pinctrl driver\n");
- return PTR_ERR(drvdata->pctl_dev);
+ return ret;
}

for (bank = 0; bank < drvdata->nr_banks; ++bank) {
@@ -1176,6 +1176,10 @@ static int samsung_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (ret)
goto err_unregister;

+ ret = pinctrl_enable(drvdata->pctl_dev);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_unregister;
+
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, drvdata);

return 0;
--
2.42.0

2023-10-07 02:16:04

by Sam Protsenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pinctrl: samsung: defer pinctrl_enable

On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 8:01 AM Mateusz Majewski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> dev_pinctrl_register function immediately enables the pinctrl subsystem,

Nitpick: dev -> devm

> which is unpreferable in general, since drivers might be unable to
> handle calls immediately. Hence devm_pinctrl_register_and_init, which
> does not call pinctrl_enable, is preferred.
>
> In case of our driver using the old function does not seem to be
> problematic for now, but will become an issue when we postpone parts of
> pinctrl initialization in a future commit, and it is a good idea to move
> off a deprecated-ish function anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Majewski <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
> index e54847040b4a..e496af72a587 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c
> @@ -904,11 +904,11 @@ static int samsung_pinctrl_register(struct platform_device *pdev,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - drvdata->pctl_dev = devm_pinctrl_register(&pdev->dev, ctrldesc,
> - drvdata);
> - if (IS_ERR(drvdata->pctl_dev)) {
> + ret = devm_pinctrl_register_and_init(&pdev->dev, ctrldesc, drvdata,
> + &drvdata->pctl_dev);
> + if (ret) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not register pinctrl driver\n");
> - return PTR_ERR(drvdata->pctl_dev);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> for (bank = 0; bank < drvdata->nr_banks; ++bank) {
> @@ -1176,6 +1176,10 @@ static int samsung_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (ret)
> goto err_unregister;
>
> + ret = pinctrl_enable(drvdata->pctl_dev);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_unregister;
> +
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, drvdata);
>
> return 0;
> --
> 2.42.0
>