[RFC PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: imx: add pinmux imx core driver

[Dong Aisheng-B29396]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guo Shawn-R65073
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 5:42 PM
> To: Dong Aisheng-B29396
> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> linus.walleij at stericsson.com; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
> kernel at pengutronix.de
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: imx: add pinmux imx core driver
> 
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 07:49:42PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > +static struct pinmux_ops imx_pmx_ops = {
> > +	.list_functions = imx_pmx_list_funcs,
> > +	.get_function_name = imx_pmx_get_func_name,
> > +	.get_function_groups = imx_pmx_get_groups,
> > +	.enable = imx_pmx_enable,
> > +};
> 
> The pinmux core code will check the pinmux_ops as below.  !ops->disable
> is one of the checking, while you do not have .disable hook.
> 
Then I have to add a disable function.

> int pinmux_check_ops(const struct pinmux_ops *ops) {
>         /* Check that we implement required operations */
>         if (!ops->list_functions ||
>             !ops->get_function_name ||
>             !ops->get_function_groups ||
>             !ops->enable ||
>             !ops->disable)
Not sure if we must check !ops->disable here since some soc may not have
disable function.

>                 return -EINVAL;
> 
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +static int __init imx_pmx_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	struct imx_pmx *ipmx;
> > +	struct resource *res;
> > +	struct imx_pinctrl_info *info;
> > +	resource_size_t res_size;
> > +
> > +	info = (struct imx_pinctrl_info *)pdev->id_entry->driver_data;
> > +	if (!info || !info->pins || !info->groups || !info->functions
> > +		|| (info->maxpin > info->npins)) {
> 
> You must mean !(info->maxpin > info->npins) here?
> 
Yes, thanks for this finding.

> Regards,
> Shawn
> 
> > +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "wrong pinctrl info\n");
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}

Regards
Dong Aisheng