Dear Sebastian Hesselbarth, On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:34:10 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign, > as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource. > This moves resource allocation from mvebu_pinctrl_probe to SoC specific > _probe functions and passes the base address to common pinctrl driver > instead. > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <[email protected]>
I definitely agree with that: I had the same problem several months ago when I started doing the pinctrl driver for Orion5x, which has a non-linear MPP register set. However, I'd like this to go a little bit further if possible. See below. > - return mvebu_pinctrl_probe(pdev); > + return mvebu_pinctrl_probe(pdev, base); I think there is no need to pass "base" to mvebu_pinctrl_probe(). The only reason we have this is because the base gets stored in the mvebu_pinctrl structure so that the mvebu_common_mpp_get() and mvebu_common_mpp_set() functions that are the default behavior for mvebu_pinconf_group_get() and mvebu_pinconf_group_set() work properly. Shouldn't we turn these functions mvebu_common_mpp_get() and mvebu_common_mpp_set() into helper functions, accessible from the per-SoC pinctrl drivers, so that they can easily implement their ->mpp_get() and ->mpp_set() callbacks? This way, the "base" thing is completely owned by the per-SoC driver, which would be more logical I believe. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
