Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Print correct pinmux info name

[Eugeniu Rosca]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 03:02:48PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

Hi Geert,

> Thanks for your patch!
> But next time, please send it inline, for easier commenting.

Thanks! Will do that next time.

> From a code maintenance point of view, I think it's safer to update the info
> pointer itself, cfr. "[PATCH v2 1/4] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Update info pointer
> after SoC-specific init"
> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg12375.html).

Agree! It's good that printing the correct PFC driver name is already
fixed on your side.

Best regards,
Eugeniu.

Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Print correct pinmux info name

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Eugeniu,

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Eugeniu Rosca  wrote:
> commit 0c151062f32c ("sh-pfc: Add support for SoC-specific
> initialization") allows defining SoC specific init functions.
> Such custom functions can register new pinmux info structures.
> Here is an example:
>
> static int my_pinmux_init(struct sh_pfc *pfc)
> {
> if (my_criteria())
> pfc->info = _pinmux_info;
> }
>
> A side effect of the pfc->info update in the above example is that
> the `const struct sh_pfc_soc_info *info` pointer used in the probe
> routine becomes outdated. One consequence of it is printing the wrong
> pinmux info structure name at the end of `sh_pfc_probe()`. Fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca 

Thanks for your patch!
But next time, please send it inline, for easier commenting.

> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.c
> index 6399eb1feb12..37fc70fb8e4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sh-pfc/core.c
> @@ -703,7 +703,7 @@ static int sh_pfc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>   platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pfc);
>
> - dev_info(pfc->dev, "%s support registered\n", info->name);
> + dev_info(pfc->dev, "%s support registered\n", pfc->info->name);

>From a code maintenance point of view, I think it's safer to update the info
pointer itself, cfr. "[PATCH v2 1/4] pinctrl: sh-pfc: Update info pointer
after SoC-specific init"
(https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg12375.html).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds