On 08/14/2013 09:54 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Sonic Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Sonic Zhang <[email protected]> >> >> One peripheral may share part of its pins with the 2nd >> peripheral and the other pins with the 3rd. If it requests all pins >> when part of them has already be requested and owned by the 2nd >> peripheral, this request fails and pinmux_disable_setting() is called. >> The pinmux_disable_setting() frees all pins of the first peripheral >> without checking if the pin is owned by itself or the 2nd, which >> results in the malfunction of the 2nd peripheral driver. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sonic Zhang <[email protected]> > > Hm it makes some sense so patch applied. > > That said I think we currently have drivers where a pin group > mapped to a certain function in a certain setting *usually* > don't overlap with pins in another group used with another > function, and having it so seems racy, i.e. it will be some > first-come-first-serve effect. > > I will add a warning print.
Surely there's a warning print already when the enable_setting() fails, so we don't need to do any more warning prints when the free_setting() cleans up after that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
