On Tuesday 13 September 2016 05:29 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Deepak <deepak_das@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
strict pin controller returns -EINVAL in case of pin request which
is already claimed by somebody else.
Following is the sequence of calling pin_request() from
pinctrl_bind_pins():-
pinctrl_bind_pins()->pinctrl_select_state()->pinmux_enable_setting()->
pin_request()
But pinctrl_bind_pins() only returns -EPROBE_DEFER which makes device
driver probe successful even if the pin request is rejected by the pin
controller subsystem.
This commit modifies pinctrl_bind_pins() to return error if the pin is
rejected by pin control subsystem.
Signed-off-by: Deepak Das <deepak_das@xxxxxxxxxx>
Aha
/* Only return deferrals */
- if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ if ((ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) && (ret != -EINVAL))
ret = 0;
I rewrote this when applying, like this:
- /* Only return deferrals */
- if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
- ret = 0;
+ /* Return deferrals */
+ if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ return ret;
+ if (ret == -EINVAL) {
+ dev_err(dev, "could not initialize pin control state\n");
+ return ret;
+ }
+ /* We ignore errors like -ENOENT meaning no pinctrl state */
- return ret;
+ return 0;
Can you confim that this works for you too?
Yes, This works for me as well but do we really need this extra error
message ?
error message is printed before returning -EINVAL from most places,
Although I did not checked all places. For example, error message in
pin_request():-
dev_err(pctldev->dev, "pin %s already requested by %s; cannot claim for
%s\n", desc->name, desc->mux_owner, owner);
Thanks,
Deepak Das
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
