From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com (Antoine =?iso-8859-1?Q?T=E9nart?=) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:58:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RESEND 1/5] pinctrl: allows not to define the get_group_pins operation In-Reply-To: References: <1397135274-10764-1-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> <1397135274-10764-2-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20140422155845.GB19762@kwain> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Linus, On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 02:48:04PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Antoine T?nart > wrote: > > > When using a group only pinctrl driver, which does not have any > > information on the pins it is useless to define a get_group_pins > > always returning an empty list of pins. > > > > When not using get_group_pin[1], a driver must implement it so > > pins = NULL and num_pins = 0. This patch makes it the default > > behaviour if not defined in the pinctrl driver when used in > > pinmux enable and disable funtions and in pinctrl_groups_show. > > > > It also adds a check in pinctrl_get_group_pins and return -EINVAL if > > not defined. This function is called in the gpiolib when adding when > > pingroup range. It cannot be used if no group is defined, so this seams > > reasonable. > > > > [1] get_group_pin(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, > > unsigned selector, > > const unsigned **pins, > > unsigned *num_pins); > > > > Signed-off-by: Antoine T?nart > > OK makes perfect sense. > > Patch applied. Thanks! > Can you please check the Documentation/pinctrl.txt to see > if anything needs to be updated due to this? I just checked and did not see needed updates due to this patch. Antoine -- Antoine T?nart, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com