From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] pinctrl: Replace list_groups() with get_groups_count()
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:26:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F749B58.4070608@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOh2x==LTHPM+O9LXVFVdX2NfzKs2bttiYLm8VcL6qLXKrUMBg@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/29/2012 10:34 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
> Most of the SoC drivers implement list_*() routines for pinctrl, pinmux,
> pinconf, etc, And these routines continue returning zero until the second
> argument is greater than total count of available groups, function, etc.
>
> I will take struct pinctrl_ops as an example to elaborate my concern/doubts.
>
> There are few concerns here:
> - list_groups() is called multiple times. If the purpose of this routine is to
> only check the number of groups available, then why not remove it and create
> another routine which returns number of total groups. Over which, we can run a
> simple loop.
> - All client drivers have checks in their ops routines to check the range of
> groups, which is just not required if we pass the correct number to pinctrl
> framework. Because these ops are going to be called via pinctrl, and we can
> trust on it and place these range checkers there only to make SoC drivers
> simple.
>
> I just wanted to have different views about my concerns/idea before i start
> coding. If this idea looks fine, i would do this change across pinmux framework.
The concept is fine by me.
I vaguely recall raising the same issue before, and Linus saying he
wanted to be consistent with similar list_*() functions in other
subsystems, but personally I'd prefer to evaluate this aspect of the
pinctrl subsystem on its own.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-29 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-29 16:34 [RFC] pinctrl: Replace list_groups() with get_groups_count() viresh kumar
2012-03-29 17:26 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
[not found] ` <CAOh2x==mGDZRoxdbuvbhKtfoxiEDVb+7vdfBEYD=u+DdMCYVhw@mail.gmail.com>
2012-03-29 17:48 ` Stephen Warren
2012-03-30 4:01 ` Viresh Kumar
2012-03-30 5:04 ` Linus Walleij
2012-03-30 5:09 ` Viresh Kumar
2012-03-30 5:14 ` Linus Walleij
2012-03-30 5:15 ` Viresh Kumar
2012-03-30 5:03 ` Linus Walleij
2012-04-02 16:30 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F749B58.4070608@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.