Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] pinctrl: st: Enhance the controller to manage unavailable registers

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 03/11/2014 09:18 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 10:17 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > From: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@xxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch adds a new logic inside the st pinctrl to manage
> > > an unsupported scenario: some sysconfig are not available!
> > >
> > > This is the case of STiH407 where, although documented, the
> > > following registers from SYSCFG_FLASH have been removed from the SoC.
> > >
> > > SYSTEM_CONFIG3040
> > >     Output Enable pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions
> > > and
> > > SYSTEM_ CONFIG3050
> > >     Pull Up pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions
> > >
> > > Without managing this condition an imprecise external abort
> > > will be detect.
> > >
> > > To do this the patch also reviews the st_parse_syscfgs
> > > and other routines to manipulate the registers only if
> > > actually available.
> > > In any case, for example the st_parse_syscfgs detected
> > > an error condition but no action was made in the
> > > st_pctl_probe_dt.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@xxxxxx>
> >
> > These two SOBs need reordering.
> Right,
> this will be changed here and everywhere else in the series.
>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 106
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > >   1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> > > index 9fb66aa..1721611 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c

<snip>

> > > -static int st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info,
> > > -        int bank, struct device_node *np)
> > > +
> > > +static struct regmap_field *st_pc_get_value(struct device *dev,
> > > +                        struct regmap *regmap, int bank,
> > > +                        int data, int lsb, int msb)
> > > +{
> > > +    struct reg_field reg = REG_FIELD((data + bank) * 4, lsb, msb);
> > > +
> > > +    if (data < 0)
> > > +        return NULL;
> >
> > What happens is data < 0 and it's used in REG_FIELD?
> Nothing bad, but I agree this is not crystal clear.
>
> > Would it make more sense to make this check before calling REG_FIELD?
> Yes, it will be done in the v4.

Finally, I have to keep it as it was if I want this patch to compile.

> <snip>
>
> Thanks,
> Maxime
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernel mailing list
> Kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.stlinux.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel
--
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/