On 08/14/2013 10:27 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > 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.
I wrote the wrong function name; s/free_setting/disable_setting/ in what I wrote. -- 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/
