> > + switch (mvchip->soc_variant) {
> > + case MVEBU_GPIO_SOC_VARIANT_ORION:
> > + mvchip->edge_mask_regs[0] =
> > + readl(mvchip->membase + GPIO_EDGE_MASK_OFF);
> > + mvchip->level_mask_regs[0] =
> > + readl(mvchip->membase + GPIO_LEVEL_MASK_OFF);
> > + break;
> > + case MVEBU_GPIO_SOC_VARIANT_MV78200:
> > + for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> > + mvchip->edge_mask_regs[i] =
> > + readl(mvchip->membase +
> > + GPIO_EDGE_MASK_MV78200_OFF(i));
> > + mvchip->level_mask_regs[i] =
> > + readl(mvchip->membase +
> > + GPIO_LEVEL_MASK_MV78200_OFF(i));
> > + }
> > + break;
> > + case MVEBU_GPIO_SOC_VARIANT_ARMADAXP:
> > + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> > + mvchip->edge_mask_regs[i] =
> > + readl(mvchip->membase +
> > + GPIO_EDGE_MASK_ARMADAXP_OFF(i));
> > + mvchip->level_mask_regs[i] =
> > + readl(mvchip->membase +
> > + GPIO_LEVEL_MASK_ARMADAXP_OFF(i));
> > + }
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + BUG();
>
> Isn't it too severe? Is the platform going too unstable if driver
> reaches this case?
> I'd consider a WARN() instead.
This is a common pattern in this driver. So i guess Thomas just
cut/pasted the switch statement from _probe(), which also has the
BUG().
Given that _probe() should of thrown a BUG() in this situation, if it
happens here, it means mvchip->soc_variant has been corrupted, and so
bad things are happening. So a BUG() is maybe called for?
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
