Re: [PATCH 1/2] RFT: pinctrl: sirf: switch to using allocated state container

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2014-05-09 19:53 GMT+08:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 2014-04-24 5:16 GMT+08:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>>> This rewrites the SIRF pinctrl driver to allocate a state container
>>>> for the GPIO chip, just as is done for the pin controller, and
>>>> use the gpiochip_add_pin_range() to add the range from the gpiochip
>>>> side rather than adding the range from the pinctrl side.
>>>>
>>>> All resulting changes are done in order to pass around a state
>>>> container rather than refer to a static global object.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Linus, thanks! but this breaks prima2 pinctrl subsystem, do you have an idea?
>>> otherwise i will do a debug to find the reason.
>>
>> Unfortunately no :-(
>>
>> This is the downside of dry-coding ... I rely on others to help out.
>>
>> See it as a suggestion to what I think should be refactored and how,
>> I'll keep it on a branch as some "TODO" item for the moment.
>>
>
> after moving pinctrl name from sirfsoc-gpio* to dev_name(&pdev->dev) as below:
> - err = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&sgpio->chip.gc, "sirfsoc-gpio*",
> + err = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&sgpio->chip.gc, dev_name(&pdev->dev),
>
> Acked-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@xxxxxxx>

Does this mean it works with that change so it's a Tested-by?

I don't want to apply it if something breaks...

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html