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

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

Hi Geert-san,

> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:24 PM
> 
> Hi Shimoda-san,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Do we need to set sh_pfc_pinmux_ops.strict = true?

If the .strict = true, the final pwm patch on this series failed with the following error:

[   11.453716] sh-pfc e6060000.pin-controller: pin GP_2_7 already requested by e6e31000.pwm; cannot claim for e6052000.gpio:459

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds