Re: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: display pin name instead of raw pin id

[Dong Aisheng]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:11:58AM +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 08:07 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Pin name is more useful to users.
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
> 
> > @@ -964,10 +984,14 @@ static int pinctrl_groups_show(struct seq_file *s, void *what)
> >  			seq_printf(s, "%s [ERROR GETTING PINS]\n",
> >  				   gname);
> >  		else {
> > +			seq_printf(s, "group: %s\n", gname);
> > +			for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> > +				pname = pin_get_name(pctldev, pins[i]);
> > +				if (!pname)
> > +					return -EINVAL;
> 
> I'd rather see this say pname = "(unknown)" instead of return, to get as
> much of the information into debugfs possible even in the face of errors.
> 
pinctrl_register_one_pin will guarantee the pname should never be NULL.
So this condition is a never happen case.
That's why i simply returned an error with no debug information.

> But perhaps that condition should even be a BUG(); it would imply that
> pinctrl_register_on_pin() had failed pretty badly.
> 
>From the comments of BUG() in bug.h, it looks using BUG() here is a little
too seriously.
=====
 * Don't use BUG() or BUG_ON() unless there's really no way out;

Maybe WARN_ON is more suitable here, right?
I will send a patch for your review.

> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> > index c494c37..fa0357b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> > @@ -88,8 +88,6 @@ static int pin_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >  	const struct pinmux_ops *ops = pctldev->desc->pmxops;
> >  	int status = -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -	dev_dbg(pctldev->dev, "request pin %d for %s\n", pin, owner);
> > -
> >  	desc = pin_desc_get(pctldev, pin);
> >  	if (desc == NULL) {
> >  		dev_err(pctldev->dev,
> > @@ -97,6 +95,9 @@ static int pin_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> >  		goto out;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	dev_dbg(pctldev->dev, "request pin %d (%s) for %s\n",
> > +		pin, desc->name, owner);
> > +
> >  	if (gpio_range) {
> >  		/* There's no need to support multiple GPIO requests */
> >  		if (desc->gpio_owner) {
> 
> That seems like it should be a separate patch?
> 
Ok to me, will make a separate one.

Regards
Dong Aisheng

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/