RE: [PATCH RFC 2/7] pinctrl: sh-pfc: remove incomplete flag "cfg->type"

[Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Linus, Geert,

> From: Linus Walleij, Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 8:02 AM
> 
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:08 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
> <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The old commit c58d9c1b26e3 ("sh-pfc: Implement generic pinconf
> > support") broke the cfg->type flag to PINMUX_TYPE_FUNCTION because
> > sh_pfc_pinconf_set() didn't call sh_pfc_reconfig_pin().
> > Now if we fix the cfg->type condition, it gets worse because:
> >  - Some drivers might be deferred so that .set_mux() will be called
> >    multiple times.
> >  - In such the case, the sh-pfc driver returns -EBUSY even if
> >    the group is the same, and then that driver fails to probe.
> >
> > Since the pinctrl subsystem already has such conditions according
> > to @set_mux and @gpio_request_enable, this patch just remove
> > the incomplete flag from sh-pfc/pinctrl.c.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This looks like it should have a Fixes: tag as well.

I got it. The Fixes tag should be:

Fixes: c58d9c1b26e3 ("sh-pfc: Implement generic pinconf support")

> Geert will decide what to do with this.

I got it.

> Can all the pinctrl patches be applied independently of the other
> changes so Geert can apply and send me those patches in his pull
> requests?

The pinctrl patches (1/7 through 3/7) can be applied on next-20190726
so I think Geert can apply these patches into his repo.

Geert, if I should resend the pinctrl patches, please let me know!

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> Yours,
> Linus Walleij