On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 08/14/2013 09:54 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Sonic Zhang <sonic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zh...@analog.com> >>> >>> One peripheral may share part of its pins with the 2nd >>> peripheral and the other pins with the 3rd. If it requests all pins >>> when part of them has already be requested and owned by the 2nd >>> peripheral, this request fails and pinmux_disable_setting() is called. >>> The pinmux_disable_setting() frees all pins of the first peripheral >>> without checking if the pin is owned by itself or the 2nd, which >>> results in the malfunction of the 2nd peripheral driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zh...@analog.com> >> >> Hm it makes some sense so patch applied. >> >> That said I think we currently have drivers where a pin group >> mapped to a certain function in a certain setting *usually* >> don't overlap with pins in another group used with another >> function, and having it so seems racy, i.e. it will be some >> first-come-first-serve effect. >> >> I will add a warning print. > > Surely there's a warning print already when the enable_setting() fails, > so we don't need to do any more warning prints when the free_setting() > cleans up after that?
Now I'm confused ... I added debug prints to pinmux_disable_setting() which is where the patch hits? free_setting() is just an empty function body still. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
