RE: [PATCH] pinctrl: Add explicit gpio_disable_free pinmux_op

[Stephen Warren]

Stephen Warren wrote at Friday, October 21, 2011 12:26 PM:
> Some pinctrl drivers (Tegra at least) program a pin to be a GPIO in a
> completely different manner than they select which function to mux out of
> that pin. In order to support a single "free" pinmux_op, the driver would
> need to maintain a per-pin state of requested-for-gpio vs. requested-for-
> function. However, that's a lot of work when the core already has explicit
> separate paths for gpio request/free and function request/free.
>
> So, add a gpio_disable_free op to struct pinmux_ops, and make pin_free()
> call it when appropriate.

LinusW,

Does this patch look good?

> When doing this, I noticed that when calling pin_request():
> 
>     !!gpio == (gpio_range != NULL)
> 
> ... and so I collapsed those two parameters in both pin_request(), and
> when adding writing the new code in pin_free().
> 
> Also, for pin_free():
> 
>     !!free_func == (gpio_range != NULL)
> 
> However, I didn't want pin_free() to know about the GPIO function naming
> special case, so instead, I reworked pin_free() to always return the pin's
> previously requested function, and now pinmux_free_gpio() calls
> kfree(function). This is much more balanced with the allocation having
> been performed in pinmux_request_gpio().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
nvpublic

--
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/