Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[FanWu]

On 06/04/2014 12:49 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/03/2014 01:37 AM, fwu@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Fan Wu <fwu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > What the patch did:
> > 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in each time of
> >    calling pinctrl_select_state
> > 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
> > 3.Remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops
> ...
> > Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> As I mentioned in my previous email, I didn't sign this off. I made some
> suggestions for a better alternative in that email.
>
> If I *had* written that s-o-b, then it should be before yours in the
> patch description since you handled the patch last.

The Signed-off didn't bother me.
I will Choose your option 2# and thanks for your suggestion about this :)


> > diff --git a/include/linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h b/include/linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h
>
> > @@ -70,8 +70,6 @@ struct pinmux_ops {
> >   				  unsigned * const num_groups);
> >   	int (*enable) (struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned func_selector,
> >   		       unsigned group_selector);
> > -	void (*disable) (struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned func_selector,
> > -			 unsigned group_selector);
>
> This will cause a compile failure, since many drivers still set the
> .disable function pointer. You need to update all the driver files to
> remove those functions too. There's quite a bit of code in some of those
> functions, so you'd need the relevant driver maintainers to confirm it's
> OK to remove it. I think only the owners of pinctrl-egra and
> pinctrl-single have ack'd this concept so far.

For this part, I think I mentioned this before, simply removing disable 
ops will introduce the compiling error.
I think there are several ways to handle this:
1. Don't remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops in this patch but 
to remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops after the another patch 
is merged, which is used to remove all of the disable ops user in all 
drivers.
2. Just remove the disable ops in pinmux_ops in this patch, and make a 
another patch ASAP to remove all the disable ops user in all drivers.
3. Remove the disable ops in struct pinmux_ops and remove all the 
disable ops user in all drivers, all in this patch.


For the solution 2, I just think it may be not a good way to include so 
much content in a patch, which are not in a same code level.

I am just inclined to use solution 1# or 3#.

Please share your comments.

Great thanks for this !

--
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/