* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> [160415 02:29]:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry uses ffs which gives bit indices
> > ranging from 1 to MAX. This leads to a corner case where we try to request
> > the pin number = MAX and fails.
> >
> > bit_pos value is being calculted using ffs. pin_num_from_lsb uses
> > bit_pos value. pins array is populated with:
> >
> > pin + pin_num_from_lsb.
> >
> > The above is 1 more than usual bit indices as bit_pos uses ffs to compute
> > first set bit. Hence the last of the pins array is populated with the MAX
> > value and not MAX - 1 which causes error when we call pin_request.
> >
> > mask_pos is rightly calculated as ((pcs->fmask) << (bit_pos - 1))
> > Consequently val_pos and submask are correct.
> >
> > Hence use __ffs which gives (ffs(x) - 1) as the first bit set.
> >
> > fixes: 4e7e8017a8 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> > Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> >
> > * Changed pcs->fshift to use __ffs instead of ffs to be consistent.
> >
> > Boot tesed on da850-evm and checked the pinctrl sysfs nodes.
>
> Patch applied for fixes with Tony's ACK.
>
> Should it also be tagged for stable?
Probably a good idea, I can see somebody pulling hair out because
of this in various product trees.
Regards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
