From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965034AbbCRRAh (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:00:37 -0400 Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93]:48976 "EHLO mx08-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932923AbbCRRAe (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:00:34 -0400 Message-ID: <5509AF14.1060200@st.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:00:04 +0100 From: Maxime Coquelin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Jones CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [STLinux Kernel] [PATCH 2/6] pinctrl: st: Introduce a 'get pin function' call References: <1426675899-19882-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1426675899-19882-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <5509AAAB.8090906@st.com> <20150318165116.GR3318@x1> In-Reply-To: <20150318165116.GR3318@x1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.201.23.80] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2015-03-18_05:2015-03-18,2015-03-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/18/2015 05:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >> >> On 03/18/2015 11:51 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> This call fetches the numerical function value a specified pin is >>> currently operating in. Function zero is more often than not the >>> GPIO function. Greater than zero values represent an alternative >>> function. You'd need to either look those up in the Device Tree >>> sources or the Programmer's Manual. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones >>> --- >>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c >>> index 9e5ec00..5362e45 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c >>> @@ -460,6 +460,20 @@ static void st_pctl_set_function(struct st_pio_control *pc, >>> regmap_field_write(alt, val); >>> } >>> +static unsigned int st_pctl_get_pin_function(struct st_pio_control *pc, int pin) >>> +{ >>> + struct regmap_field *alt = pc->alt; >>> + unsigned int val; >>> + int offset = pin * 4; >>> + >>> + if (!alt) >>> + return 0; >> Shouldn't we print something if alt is NULL? >> Else we can think we are on alternate 0. > That is the assumption that I've made. Is there isn't an alt, then a > pin can only be on Alt-0. Have I made the incorrect assumption here? Just re-checked the code, and yes you are right. No alt here means alt field of struct st_pctl_data is -1, which in turn means the register is not available. You can forget my remark, and add my: Acked-by: Maxime Coquelin Thanks, Maxime