On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 18:58 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> This creates a subsystem for handling of pinmux devices. These are
> devices that enable and disable groups of pins on primarily PGA and
> BGA type of chip packages and common in embedded systems.

Trivia only:

> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
[]
> +int pin_is_valid(int pin)
> +{
> +     return pin >= 0 && pin < num_pins;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pin_is_valid);

bool pin_is_valid?

> +/* Deletes a range of pin descriptors */
> +static void pinctrl_free_pindescs(struct pinctrl_pin_desc const *pins,
> +                               unsigned num_pins)

const struct pinctrl_pin_desc *pins

> +{
> +     int i;
> +
> +     for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> +             struct pin_desc *pindesc;
> +
> +             spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +             pindesc = radix_tree_lookup(&pin_desc_tree, pins[i].number);
> +             if (pindesc != NULL) {
> +                     radix_tree_delete(&pin_desc_tree, pins[i].number);
> +                     num_pins --;

No space please

> +             }
> +             spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +             kfree(pindesc);
> +     }
> +}

Is it really worthwhile to have spin_lock/unlock in the loop?

> +static int pinctrl_register_one_pin(unsigned number, const char *name)
> +{
> +     /* Copy optional basic pin info */
> +     if (name) {
> +             strncpy(pindesc->name, name, 16);

strlcpy

> +             pindesc->name[15] = '\0';
> +     }
> +
> +     spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +     radix_tree_insert(&pin_desc_tree, number, pindesc);
> +     num_pins ++;

No space please

> +     spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +     return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* Passing in 0 num_pins means "sparse" */
> +static int pinctrl_register_pins(struct pinctrl_pin_desc const *pins,
> +                              unsigned num_descs, unsigned num_pins)
[]
> +      * If we are registerering dense pinlists, fill in all holes with

registering

> +      * anonymous pins.
> +      */
> +     for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> +             char pinname[16];
> +             struct pin_desc *pindesc;
> +
> +             spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +             pindesc = radix_tree_lookup(&pin_desc_tree, i);
> +             spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +             /* Already registered this one, take next */
> +             if (pindesc)
> +                     continue;
> +
> +             snprintf(pinname, 15, "anonymous %u", i);
> +             pinname[15] = '\0';

strlcpy

> +int pinctrl_register_pins_dense(struct pinctrl_pin_desc const *pins,
> +                              unsigned num_descs, unsigned num_pins)
> +{
> +     int ret;
> +     unsigned i;
> +
> +     ret = pinctrl_register_pins(pins, num_descs, num_pins);
> +     if (ret) {
> +             for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> +                     struct pin_desc *pindesc;
> +
> +                     spin_lock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +                     pindesc = radix_tree_lookup(&pin_desc_tree, i);
> +                     if (pindesc != NULL) {
> +                             radix_tree_delete(&pin_desc_tree, i);
> +                             num_pins --;
> +                     }
> +                     spin_unlock(&pin_desc_tree_lock);
> +                     kfree(pindesc);
> +             }

Second use of this pattern.  Maybe use pinctrl_free_pindescs?



_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev

Reply via email to