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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox