Hi,

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> >> +static int axp20x_pmx_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >> +                        unsigned int function, unsigned int group)
> >> +{
> >> +  struct axp20x_gpio *gpio = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> >> +  unsigned int mask;
> >> +
> >> +  /* Every pin supports GPIO_OUT and GPIO_IN functions */
> >> +  if (function <= AXP20X_FUNC_GPIO_IN)
> >> +          return axp20x_pmx_set(pctldev, group,
> >> +                                gpio->funcs[function].muxval);
> >> +
> >> +  if (function == AXP20X_FUNC_LDO)
> >> +          mask = gpio->desc->ldo_mask;
> >> +  else
> >> +          mask = gpio->desc->adc_mask;
> > 
> > What is the point of this test...
> > 
> >> +  if (!(BIT(group) & mask))
> >> +          return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +  /*
> >> +   * We let the regulator framework handle the LDO muxing as muxing bits
> >> +   * are basically also regulators on/off bits. It's better not to enforce
> >> +   * any state of the regulator when selecting LDO mux so that we don't
> >> +   * interfere with the regulator driver.
> >> +   */
> >> +  if (function == AXP20X_FUNC_LDO)
> >> +          return 0;
> > 
> > ... if you know that you're not going to do anything with one of the
> > outcomes. It would be better to just move that part above, instead of
> > doing the same test twice.
> > 
> 
> Return value is different. In one case, it is an error to request "ldo"
> for a pin that does not support it. In the other case, the ldo request
> is valid but nothing's done on driver side.
> 
> Both cases are handled differently by the core:
> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c#L439
> 
> I think that's the behavior we're expecting from this driver.

Ah, right.

> Or maybe you're asking to do:
> 
> +     if (function == AXP20X_FUNC_LDO) {
> +             if (!(BIT(group) & gpio->desc->ldo_mask))
> +                     return -EINVAL;
> +             return 0;
> +     } else if (!(BIT(group) & gpio->desc->adc_mask)) {
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +     }
> 
> ?

No, it's definitely better the way you did it.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to