| Message ID | 20171213144748.GA18267@arx-s1 |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | pwm support for allwinner sun8i R40/V40/T3 SOCs. | expand |
Hi, Thanks for your patch! On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:47:48PM +0800, hao_zhang wrote: > Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with > mutiple variant and same function. > > such as: > on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c > > SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2), > SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), > SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), > SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ > PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | > PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), > SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ > PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), > > it would always match to the first variant function > (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20) > > so we should add variant compare on it. > > Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <hao5781286@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c > index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c > @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl, > struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions; > > while (func->name) { > - if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) > + if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) { > + if (!(func->variant) || > + (func->variant & pctl->variant)) I guess it would be better to have: if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) && (!func->variant || (func->variant & pctl->variant))) Once fixed, Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> Thanks! Maxime
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:47 PM, hao_zhang <hao5781286@gmail.com> wrote: > Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with > mutiple variant and same function. > > such as: > on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c > > SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2), > SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), > SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), > SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ > PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | > PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), > SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ > PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), > > it would always match to the first variant function > (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20) > > so we should add variant compare on it. > > Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <hao5781286@gmail.com> Please resend patch with Maxime's suggestions fixed and his ACK added so I can apply it. I can take this patch separatelt, it does not need to be part of the PWM series. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2017-12-13 23:45 GMT+08:00 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>: > Hi, > > Thanks for your patch! > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:47:48PM +0800, hao_zhang wrote: >> Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with >> mutiple variant and same function. >> >> such as: >> on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c >> >> SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2), >> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), >> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), >> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ >> PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | >> PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), >> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ >> PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), >> >> it would always match to the first variant function >> (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20) >> >> so we should add variant compare on it. >> >> Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <hao5781286@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++-- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c >> index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c >> @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl, >> struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions; >> >> while (func->name) { >> - if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) >> + if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) { >> + if (!(func->variant) || >> + (func->variant & pctl->variant)) > > I guess it would be better to have: > if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) && > (!func->variant || (func->variant & pctl->variant))) It would over 80 characters, can i change it by this ? if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) && (func->variant & pctl->variant || !func->variant)) > > Once fixed, > Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> > > Thanks! > Maxime > > -- > Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 07:08:53PM +0800, Hao Zhang wrote: > 2017-12-13 23:45 GMT+08:00 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:47:48PM +0800, hao_zhang wrote: > >> Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with > >> mutiple variant and same function. > >> > >> such as: > >> on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c > >> > >> SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2), > >> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), > >> SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), > >> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ > >> PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | > >> PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), > >> SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ > >> PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), > >> > >> it would always match to the first variant function > >> (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20) > >> > >> so we should add variant compare on it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <hao5781286@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++-- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c > >> index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c > >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c > >> @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl, > >> struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions; > >> > >> while (func->name) { > >> - if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) > >> + if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) { > >> + if (!(func->variant) || > >> + (func->variant & pctl->variant)) > > > > I guess it would be better to have: > > if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) && > > (!func->variant || (func->variant & pctl->variant))) > > It would over 80 characters, can i change it by this ? > if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name) && > (func->variant & pctl->variant || > !func->variant)) It feels more natural to have !func->variant first, but feel free to have it split that way yes. Maxime
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c index 4b6cb25..f23e74e 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c @@ -83,9 +83,11 @@ sunxi_pinctrl_desc_find_function_by_name(struct sunxi_pinctrl *pctl, struct sunxi_desc_function *func = pin->functions; while (func->name) { - if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) + if (!strcmp(func->name, func_name)) { + if (!(func->variant) || + (func->variant & pctl->variant)) return func; - + } func++; } }
Pin function can not be match correctly when SUNXI_PIN describe with mutiple variant and same function. such as: on pinctrl-sun4i-a10.c SUNXI_PIN(SUNXI_PINCTRL_PIN(B, 2), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x0, "gpio_in"), SUNXI_FUNCTION(0x1, "gpio_out"), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x2, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10 | PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20), SUNXI_FUNCTION_VARIANT(0x3, "pwm", /* PWM0 */ PINCTRL_SUN8I_R40)), it would always match to the first variant function (PINCTRL_SUN4I_A10, PINCTRL_SUN7I_A20) so we should add variant compare on it. Signed-off-by: hao_zhang <hao5781286@gmail.com> --- drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)