On 09/22/2017 05:47 AM, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 06:04:20PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> It may happen that a device needs to force applying a state, e.g: >> because it only defines one state of pin states (default) but loses >> power/register contents when entering low power modes. Add a >> pinctrl_dev::flags bitmask to help describe future quirks and define >> PINCTRL_FLG_FORCE_STATE as such a settable flag. >> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/pinctrl/core.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> drivers/pinctrl/core.h | 4 ++++ >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c >> index 56fbe4c3e800..c450a97de88f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c >> @@ -1197,11 +1197,26 @@ int pinctrl_select_state(struct pinctrl *p, struct pinctrl_state *state) >> { >> struct pinctrl_setting *setting, *setting2; >> struct pinctrl_state *old_state = p->state; >> + bool force = false; >> int ret; >> >> if (p->state == state) >> return 0; > > I am guessing you probably intended to remove these two lines. Argh right, I cherry-picked what I done on an earlier kernel version and this resolved to this, thanks for noticing! > >> >> + if (p->state) { >> + list_for_each_entry(setting, &p->state->settings, node) { >> + if (setting->pctldev->flags & PINCTRL_FLG_FORCE_STATE) >> + force = true; >> + } >> + } >> + >> + /* Some controllers may want to force this operation when they define >> + * only one set of functions and lose power state, e.g: pinctrl-single >> + * with its pinctrl-single,low-power-state-loss property. >> + */ >> + if (p->state == state && !force) >> + return 0; >> + > > Thanks, > Charles > -- Florian -- 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