* [PATCH v3 1/2] ads7846: fix gpio free without requesting
@ 2011-02-03 15:21 Sourav Poddar
2011-02-03 15:47 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sourav Poddar @ 2011-02-03 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
gpio_pendown in ads7846_probe is not getting initalized (defaulted to 0)
resulting in gpio_free being called without a gpio_request. This
results in the following backtrace in bootup (at least on an OMAP3430 SDP).
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: at drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c:1258 gpio_free+0x100/0x12c()
Modules linked in:
[<c0061208>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xe4) from [<c0091f58>](warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64)
[<c0091f58>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64) from [<c0091f88>](warn_slowpath_null+0x18/0x1c)
[<c0091f88>] (warn_slowpath_null+0x18/0x1c) from [<c024e610>](gpio_free+0x100/0x12c)
[<c024e610>] (gpio_free+0x100/0x12c) from [<c03e9fbc>](ads7846_probe+0xa38/0xc5c)
[<c03e9fbc>] (ads7846_probe+0xa38/0xc5c) from [<c02cff14>](spi_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c)
[<c02cff14>] (spi_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c) from [<c028bca4>](driver_probe_device+0xc8/0x184)
[<c028bca4>] (driver_probe_device+0xc8/0x184) from [<c028bdc8>](__driver_attach+0x68/0x8c)
[<c028bdc8>] (__driver_attach+0x68/0x8c) from [<c028b4c8>](bus_for_each_dev+0x48/0x74)
[<c028b4c8>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x48/0x74) from [<c028ae08>](bus_add_driver+0xa0/0x220)
[<c028ae08>] (bus_add_driver+0xa0/0x220) from [<c028c0c0>](driver_register+0xa8/0x134)
[<c028c0c0>] (driver_register+0xa8/0x134) from [<c0050550>](do_one_initcall+0xcc/0x1a4)
[<c0050550>] (do_one_initcall+0xcc/0x1a4) from [<c00084e4>](kernel_init+0x14c/0x214)
[<c00084e4>] (kernel_init+0x14c/0x214) from [<c005b494>](kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
---[ end trace 4053287f8a5ec18f ]---
Initialize gpio_pendown in ads7846_probe to -EINVAL before
ads7846_setup_pendown function and using gpio_is_valid function
in conditional check removes the above backtrace
warning.
Signed-off-by: Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@mail.ru>
---
Links related to the previous discussions:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg45093.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap at vger.kernel.org/msg43506.html
drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
index 14ea54b..ce5baee 100644
--- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
+++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
@@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_setup_pendown(struct spi_device *spi, struct ads784
if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
+ ts->gpio_pendown = -EINVAL;
return 0;
}
@@ -1353,7 +1354,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
err_put_regulator:
regulator_put(ts->reg);
err_free_gpio:
- if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1)
+ if (gpio_is_valid(ts->gpio_pendown))
gpio_free(ts->gpio_pendown);
err_cleanup_filter:
if (ts->filter_cleanup)
--
1.7.0.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 1/2] ads7846: fix gpio free without requesting
2011-02-03 15:21 [PATCH v3 1/2] ads7846: fix gpio free without requesting Sourav Poddar
@ 2011-02-03 15:47 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-02-03 16:29 ` Igor Grinberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2011-02-03 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:51:26PM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
> gpio_pendown in ads7846_probe is not getting initalized (defaulted to 0)
> resulting in gpio_free being called without a gpio_request. This
> results in the following backtrace in bootup (at least on an OMAP3430 SDP).
I wonder if it makes sense to merge both patches under the name of "fix
gpio-handling" or similar. Not sure, though...
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> index 14ea54b..ce5baee 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> @@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_setup_pendown(struct spi_device *spi, struct ads784
>
> if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
> ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
> + ts->gpio_pendown = -EINVAL;
> return 0;
> }
Will probably work, but maybe it is better to reorganize the code to
just have one success-exit-point. That would be mean adding an else
branch to this if-block.
>
> @@ -1353,7 +1354,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> err_put_regulator:
> regulator_put(ts->reg);
> err_free_gpio:
> - if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1)
> + if (gpio_is_valid(ts->gpio_pendown))
You could do the same in the remove-path.
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110203/e9a581ac/attachment-0001.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 1/2] ads7846: fix gpio free without requesting
2011-02-03 15:47 ` Wolfram Sang
@ 2011-02-03 16:29 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-02-03 16:48 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Igor Grinberg @ 2011-02-03 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi,
On 02/03/11 17:47, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:51:26PM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
>> gpio_pendown in ads7846_probe is not getting initalized (defaulted to 0)
>> resulting in gpio_free being called without a gpio_request. This
>> results in the following backtrace in bootup (at least on an OMAP3430 SDP).
> I wonder if it makes sense to merge both patches under the name of "fix
> gpio-handling" or similar. Not sure, though...
I'd rather not do that, because this patch fixes the request/free problem
and the second is changing the functionality (e.g. configures the gpio as input)
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
>> index 14ea54b..ce5baee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
>> @@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_setup_pendown(struct spi_device *spi, struct ads784
>>
>> if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
>> ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
>> + ts->gpio_pendown = -EINVAL;
>> return 0;
>> }
> Will probably work, but maybe it is better to reorganize the code to
> just have one success-exit-point. That would be mean adding an else
> branch to this if-block.
This is something that can be done, though I fear the code readability
will suffer. Is it worth?
>>
>> @@ -1353,7 +1354,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>> err_put_regulator:
>> regulator_put(ts->reg);
>> err_free_gpio:
>> - if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1)
>> + if (gpio_is_valid(ts->gpio_pendown))
> You could do the same in the remove-path.
You mean, _should_... ;)
Otherwise, the patch is not complete.
--
Regards,
Igor.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 1/2] ads7846: fix gpio free without requesting
2011-02-03 16:29 ` Igor Grinberg
@ 2011-02-03 16:48 ` Wolfram Sang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wolfram Sang @ 2011-02-03 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
> > I wonder if it makes sense to merge both patches under the name of "fix
> > gpio-handling" or similar. Not sure, though...
>
> I'd rather not do that, because this patch fixes the request/free problem
> and the second is changing the functionality (e.g. configures the gpio as input)
Ack.
>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> >> index 14ea54b..ce5baee 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> >> @@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_setup_pendown(struct spi_device *spi, struct ads784
> >>
> >> if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
> >> ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
> >> + ts->gpio_pendown = -EINVAL;
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> > Will probably work, but maybe it is better to reorganize the code to
> > just have one success-exit-point. That would be mean adding an else
> > branch to this if-block.
>
> This is something that can be done, though I fear the code readability
> will suffer. Is it worth?
I thought it to be more readable to have one-entry-one-OK-exit. But
actually I don't mind that much.
>
> >>
> >> @@ -1353,7 +1354,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> >> err_put_regulator:
> >> regulator_put(ts->reg);
> >> err_free_gpio:
> >> - if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1)
> >> + if (gpio_is_valid(ts->gpio_pendown))
> > You could do the same in the remove-path.
>
> You mean, _should_... ;)
Yes, I meant that :)
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110203/5fbdbf31/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-03 16:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-02-03 15:21 [PATCH v3 1/2] ads7846: fix gpio free without requesting Sourav Poddar
2011-02-03 15:47 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-02-03 16:29 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-02-03 16:48 ` Wolfram Sang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).