[PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry to use __ffs than ffs

[Keerthy]

pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry uses ffs which gives bit indices
ranging from 1 to MAX. This leads to a corner case where we try to request
the pin number = MAX and fails.

bit_pos value is being calculted using ffs. pin_num_from_lsb uses
bit_pos value. pins array is populated with:

pin + pin_num_from_lsb.

The above is 1 more than usual bit indices as bit_pos uses ffs to compute
first set bit. Hence the last of the pins array is populated with the MAX
value and not MAX - 1 which causes error when we call pin_request.

mask_pos is rightly calculated as ((pcs->fmask) << (bit_pos - 1))
Consequently val_pos and submask are correct.

Hence use __ffs which gives (ffs(x) - 1) as the first bit set.

fixes: 4e7e8017a8 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy at ti.com>
---

Boot tested on da850-evm

 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index 748c047..897b89b 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -1323,9 +1323,9 @@ static int pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry(struct pcs_device *pcs,
 
 		/* Parse pins in each row from LSB */
 		while (mask) {
-			bit_pos = ffs(mask);
+			bit_pos = __ffs(mask);
 			pin_num_from_lsb = bit_pos / pcs->bits_per_pin;
-			mask_pos = ((pcs->fmask) << (bit_pos - 1));
+			mask_pos = ((pcs->fmask) << bit_pos);
 			val_pos = val & mask_pos;
 			submask = mask & mask_pos;
 
-- 
1.9.1