Re: [PATCH v13 03/10] mux: minimal mux subsystem and gpio-based mux controller

[Philipp Zabel <p.zabel-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 16:32 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-21 16:23, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > [...]
> >> +int mux_chip_register(struct mux_chip *mux_chip)
> >> +{
> >> +	int i;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < mux_chip->controllers; ++i) {
> >> +		struct mux_control *mux = &mux_chip->mux[i];
> >> +
> >> +		if (mux->idle_state == mux->cached_state)
> >> +			continue;
> > 
> > I think this should be changed to
> >  
> > -               if (mux->idle_state == mux->cached_state)
> > +               if (mux->idle_state == mux->cached_state ||
> > +                   mux->idle_state == MUX_IDLE_AS_IS)
> >                         continue;
> > 
> > or the following mux_control_set will be called with state ==
> > MUX_IDLE_AS_IS. Alternatively, mux_control_set should return when passed
> > this value.
> 
> That cannot happen because ->cached_state is initialized to -1
> in mux_chip_alloc, so should always be == MUX_IDLE_AS_IS when
> registering. And drivers are not supposed to touch ->cached_state.
> I.e., ->cached_state is "owned" by the core.

So this was caused by me filling cached_state from register reads in the
mmio driver. Makes me wonder why I am not allowed to do this, though, if
I am able to read back the initial state?

regards
Philipp

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html