From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:11:58 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: display pin name instead of raw pin id
In-Reply-To: <1334585244-10249-1-git-send-email-b29396@freescale.com>
References: <1334585244-10249-1-git-send-email-b29396@freescale.com>
Message-ID: <4F8C60EE.30008@wwwdotorg.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 04/16/2012 08:07 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
> 
> Pin name is more useful to users.

> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c

> @@ -964,10 +984,14 @@ static int pinctrl_groups_show(struct seq_file *s, void *what)
>  			seq_printf(s, "%s [ERROR GETTING PINS]\n",
>  				   gname);
>  		else {
> +			seq_printf(s, "group: %s\n", gname);
> +			for (i = 0; i < num_pins; i++) {
> +				pname = pin_get_name(pctldev, pins[i]);
> +				if (!pname)
> +					return -EINVAL;

I'd rather see this say pname = "(unknown)" instead of return, to get as
much of the information into debugfs possible even in the face of errors.

But perhaps that condition should even be a BUG(); it would imply that
pinctrl_register_on_pin() had failed pretty badly.

> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> index c494c37..fa0357b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinmux.c
> @@ -88,8 +88,6 @@ static int pin_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>  	const struct pinmux_ops *ops = pctldev->desc->pmxops;
>  	int status = -EINVAL;
>  
> -	dev_dbg(pctldev->dev, "request pin %d for %s\n", pin, owner);
> -
>  	desc = pin_desc_get(pctldev, pin);
>  	if (desc == NULL) {
>  		dev_err(pctldev->dev,
> @@ -97,6 +95,9 @@ static int pin_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> +	dev_dbg(pctldev->dev, "request pin %d (%s) for %s\n",
> +		pin, desc->name, owner);
> +
>  	if (gpio_range) {
>  		/* There's no need to support multiple GPIO requests */
>  		if (desc->gpio_owner) {

That seems like it should be a separate patch?