Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: zynqmp: Support muxing individual pins

[Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>]

On 5/6/24 15:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Fri, May 03, 2024 at 12:22:17PM -0400, Sean Anderson kirjoitti:
>> While muxing groups of pins at once can be convenient for large
>> interfaces, it can also be rigid. This is because the group is set to
>> all pins which support a particular function, even though not all pins
>> may be used. For example, the sdhci0 function may be used with a 8-bit
>> eMMC, 4-bit SD card, or even a 1-bit SD card. In these cases, the extra
>> pins may be repurposed for other uses, but this is not currently
>> allowed.
>> 
>> Add a new group for each pin which can be muxed. These groups are part
>> of each function the pin can be muxed to. We treat group selectors
>> beyond the number of groups as "pin" groups. To set this up, we
>> initialize groups before functions, and then create a bitmap of used
>> pins for each function. These used pins are appended to the function's
>> list of groups.
> 
> ...
> 
>> +			for (pin = 0; pin < groups[resp[i]].npins; pin++)
>> +				set_bit(groups[resp[i]].pins[pin], used_pins);
> 
> Why atomic bit operation?

The name was easier to remember. I can make it non-atomic.

> ...
> 
>> +	fgroups = devm_kcalloc(dev, func->ngroups + npins, sizeof(*fgroups),
> 
> size_add() from overflow.h.

OK

>> +			       GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!fgroups)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> ...
> 
>> +	for (i = 0; i < func->ngroups; i++) {
>> +		fgroups[i] = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s_%d_grp",
>> +					    func->name, i);
>> +		if (!fgroups[i])
>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>> +	}
> 
> Hmm... Can this benefit from devm_kasprintf_strarray()?
> 

I don't think so, since the prefix is different for each group.

Thanks for the suggestions.

--Sean

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel