On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 9:17 PM Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The blamed commit introduce support for lan966x which use the same > pinconf_ops as sparx5. The problem is that pinconf_ops is specific to > sparx5. More precisely the offset of the bits in the pincfg register are > different and also lan966x doesn't have support for > PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE. > > Fix this by making pinconf_ops more generic such that it can be also > used by lan966x. This is done by introducing 'ocelot_pincfg_data' which > contains the offset and what is supported for each SOC. Thanks for an update! My comments below. ... I believe introducing struct ocelot_pincfg_data *opd = info->pincfg_data; may allow to reduce LoCs... > + *val = regcfg & > + (info->pincfg_data->pd_bit | > + info->pincfg_data->pu_bit); ...like here: *val = regcfg & (opd->pd_bit | opd->pu_bit); ... > + info->desc = devm_kmemdup(dev, &data->desc, > + sizeof(struct pinctrl_desc), GFP_KERNEL); sizeof(*info->desc) and missed the NULL check. ... > + info->pincfg_data = devm_kmemdup(dev, &data->pincfg_data, > + sizeof(struct ocelot_match_data), sizeof(*info->pincfg_data) (isn't it a bug here?) > + GFP_KERNEL); and missed the NULL check. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko