Re: [PATCH v3] pinctrl: to avoid duplicated calling enable_pinmux_setting for a pin

[FanWu <fwu@marvell.com>]

On 05/30/2014 03:19 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/25/2014 08:43 PM, fwu@marvell.com wrote:
>> From: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
>>
>> What the patch did:
>> 1.To call pinmux_disable_setting ahead of pinmux_enable_setting in each time of
>>    calling pinctrl_select_state
>> 2.Remove the HW disable operation in in pinmux_disable_setting function.
> ...
>
> This commit description is way too long for such a simple change. A much
> shorter summary would be better.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <fwu@marvell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>
> I'm pretty sure I never signed off on this patch. How come my s-o-b line
> is there?
>
> This patch still doesn't remove ops->disable from the struct pinmux_ops,
> nor any of its implementations. Shouldn't it?
>

Dear Stephen,

For your comments 1: The reason why I want to put a lot of info into the 
patch comments is that the long term discussion about the topic and the 
patch is not that easy to understand for a patch reader, or maybe is not 
easy for us to understand in far future.

For your comments 2: I accepted your suggestion of inline code comments 
and some other suggestions from our discussion, so I added your signed 
off tailing in the patch comments.
If you think it is not fine, I can remove it in the new patch version.

For your comments 3:
I think I have made myself clear in the last mail:
1) If I remove the ops->disable from the struct pinmux_ops in this 
patch, the pinctrl-single user will got build error immediately.
2) Thus, I want to merge this patch first and then make other two 
patches later:
One is to remove the ops->disable registration in pinctrl-single driver.
And the other is to remove ops->disable in struct pinmux_ops.

Could you please give your final suggestion about this and then I will 
give new patch?

Great thanks about this! :)

Looking forward your reply !