On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 10:25 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> dev_err(pctldev->dev,
>> - "could not request pin %d on device %s\n",
>> - pins[i], pinctrl_dev_get_name(pctldev));
>> + "could not request pin %d from group %s on "
>> + "device %s\n",
>> + pins[i], gname, pinctrl_dev_get_name(pctldev));
>
> I think it'd be useful to print the pin name rather than pin number here.
Fixed it.
>> @@ -486,6 +499,16 @@ void pinmux_disable_setting(struct pinctrl_setting
>> const *setting)
>> desc->mux_setting = NULL;
>> /* And release the pin */
>> pin_free(pctldev, pins[i], NULL);
>> + } else {
>> + const char *gname;
>> +
>> + gname = pctlops->get_group_name(pctldev,
>> + setting->data.mux.group);
>> + dev_warn(pctldev->dev,
>> + "not freeing pin %d as part of deactivating "
>> + "group %s - it is already used for some other
>> "
>> + "setting",
>> + pins[i], gname);
>> }
>> }
>
> I think that will only happen if one of the pinmux_enabling_setting
> prints already happened. Is it worth adding this one?
It happens at two very distinct places in the run path, disabling a setting
may appear at a totally different place in the dmesg so I think so.
It's just below the just added code that will avoid free:ing a pin if some
other setting is muxing it, so it's this print I was talking about
with Sonic.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/
