Hi Linus, On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Sonic Zhang <sonic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like Stephen and Axel to have a look at this as well... > >> From: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zh...@analog.com> >> >> in pinmux_disable_setting after current device fails to request >> the same pins. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zh...@analog.com> > > 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
