From: swarren@wwwdotorg•org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 6/6] pinctrl: add pinctrl gpio binding support
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 21:52:08 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FC59968.1060600@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120530030157.GA2235@b29396-Latitude-E6410>
On 05/29/2012 09:01 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 09:39:19AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 05/26/2012 10:52 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg•org> wrote:
>>>> On 05/25/2012 07:36 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>> ...
>>>> If we don't do that, [lock ranges[i].gc] I would argue that we
>>>> shouldn't store ranges[i].gc, since it might become invalid - I
>>>> believe the only use of it is withinthis function?
>>>>
>>> In my option, i think it's ok to store it since they're just some data
>>> to describe
>>> hw properties. The gpio function may become invalid but not data.
>>> Is it reasonable to you?
>>
>> The problem is that if someone tries to dereference the gc field, and
>> it's no longer valid, which could cause an OOPS. Perhaps we can get away
>> just with a comment in the struct definition indicating that this field
>> should only be used by drivers that provided the gc field directly
>> rather than having it set up by DT, but then why even store it when
>> creating the ranges from DT in that case?
>
> Yes, you're right.
> Maybe we could both not store the gc filed for DT (currently we did not see
> the need to store it for dt, right?) and add a comment in the struct definition
> as you said. For non-dt users the driver owner should manage that field
> correctly with lock since it's provided directly by driver.
> Is that ok?
Yes, that makes sense to me. Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-30 3:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-25 13:36 [PATCH v4 1/6] gpio: fix a typo of comment message Dong Aisheng
2012-05-25 13:36 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] gpio: re-add of_node_to_gpiochip function Dong Aisheng
2012-05-26 0:01 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-26 16:15 ` Dong Aisheng
2012-05-25 13:36 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] of: release node fix for of_parse_phandle_with_args Dong Aisheng
2012-05-26 0:09 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-25 13:36 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] gpio: introduce lock mechanism for gpiochip_find Dong Aisheng
2012-05-26 0:25 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-26 16:17 ` Dong Aisheng
2012-05-30 4:10 ` Dong Aisheng
2012-05-30 6:33 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-25 13:36 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] of: add of_parse_phandle_with_args_ext function Dong Aisheng
2012-05-25 16:50 ` Stephen Warren
2012-05-25 13:36 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] pinctrl: add pinctrl gpio binding support Dong Aisheng
2012-05-25 17:03 ` Stephen Warren
2012-05-26 16:52 ` Dong Aisheng
2012-05-27 15:39 ` Stephen Warren
2012-05-30 3:01 ` Dong Aisheng
2012-05-30 3:52 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2012-05-30 6:35 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-26 0:29 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-26 16:58 ` Dong Aisheng
2012-05-30 6:46 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-30 7:29 ` Dong Aisheng
2012-05-25 23:57 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] gpio: fix a typo of comment message Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FC59968.1060600@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox