Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757724Ab3HHDmO (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:42:14 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:62489 "EHLO mail-la0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757259Ab3HHDmL (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:42:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1374039105-17777-1-git-send-email-sonic.adi@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:42:09 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinmux: Don't free pins requested by other devices From: Sonic Zhang To: Linus Walleij Cc: Stephen Warren , Axel Lin , Grant Likely , Steven Miao , LKML , "buildroot-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org" , adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Sonic Zhang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2089 Lines: 59 Hi Linus, On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Sonic Zhang wrote: > > I'd like Stephen and Axel to have a look at this as well... > >> From: Sonic Zhang >> >> in pinmux_disable_setting after current device fails to request >> the same pins. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sonic Zhang > > I don't quite understand the patch. Can you provide more context? > >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c >> index 88cc509..9ebcf3b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c >> @@ -482,13 +482,14 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting const *setting) >> pins[i]); >> continue; >> } >> + /* And release the pins */ >> + if (desc->mux_usecount && >> + !strcmp(desc->mux_owner, setting->dev_name)) >> + pin_free(pctldev, pins[i], NULL); >> + >> desc->mux_setting = NULL; >> } >> >> - /* And release the pins */ >> - for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) >> - pin_free(pctldev, pins[i], NULL); >> - > > For pinmux_disable_setting() to inspect desc->mux_usecount seems > assymetric. This is something pin_free() should do, shouldn't it? > > Should not this codepath be kept and a change made inside pin_free() > for the check above instead? > You can't move this codepath into pin_free(), because the pointer to structure pinctrl_setting is not passed through pin_free(). But yes, checking desc->mux_usecount is not necessary here, because pin_free() has already handled that. I will remove desc->mux_usecount checking in next patch. Regards, Sonic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/