On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:58 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> From: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>
> Some qcom platforms make some GPIOs or pins unavailable for use
> by non-secure operating systems, and thus reading or writing the
> registers for those pins will cause access control issues and
> reset the device. With a DT/ACPI property to describe the set of
> pins that are available for use, parse the available pins and set
> the irq valid bits for gpiolib to know what to consider 'valid'.
> This should avoid any issues with gpiolib. Furthermore, implement
> the pinmux_ops::request function so that pinmux can also make
> sure to not use pins that are unavailable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Hmm...
> +static int msm_pinmux_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned
> offset)
> +{
> + struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> + struct gpio_chip *chip = &pctrl->chip;
> +
> + if (gpiochip_line_is_valid(chip, offset))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
Perhaps traditional pattern
if (!...)
return -EINVAL;
return 0;
?
> +}
> seq_printf(s, " %dmA", msm_regval_to_drive(drive));
> - seq_printf(s, " %s", pulls[pull]);
> + seq_printf(s, " %s\n", pulls[pull]);
I had commented this once, but you ignored by some reason.
I would rather just move
seq_puts(s, "\n");
here.
The rationale behind, besides making diff more neat, is to reduce
possible burden in the future if someone would like to squeeze more data
in between.
> + tmp = kmalloc_array(len, sizeof(tmp[0]), GFP_KERNEL);
sizeof(*tmp) ?
> + if (!tmp)
> + return -ENOMEM;
--
Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
Intel Finland Oy
