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.
> + ret = mux_control_set(mux, mux->idle_state);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(&mux_chip->dev, "unable to set idle state\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ret = device_add(&mux_chip->dev);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_err(&mux_chip->dev,
> + "device_add failed in mux_chip_register: %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_chip_register);
regards
Philipp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
