Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[Stephen Warren]

On 06/03/2014 01:37 AM, fwu@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Fan Wu <fwu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> What the patch did:
> 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in each time of
>   calling pinctrl_select_state
> 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
> 3.Remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops
...
> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>

As I mentioned in my previous email, I didn't sign this off. I made some
suggestions for a better alternative in that email.

If I *had* written that s-o-b, then it should be before yours in the
patch description since you handled the patch last.

> diff --git a/include/linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h b/include/linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h

> @@ -70,8 +70,6 @@ struct pinmux_ops {
>  				  unsigned * const num_groups);
>  	int (*enable) (struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned func_selector,
>  		       unsigned group_selector);
> -	void (*disable) (struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned func_selector,
> -			 unsigned group_selector);

This will cause a compile failure, since many drivers still set the
.disable function pointer. You need to update all the driver files to
remove those functions too. There's quite a bit of code in some of those
functions, so you'd need the relevant driver maintainers to confirm it's
OK to remove it. I think only the owners of pinctrl-egra and
pinctrl-single have ack'd this concept so far.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/