Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:05:36AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> +int pinctrl_check_dynamic(struct device *dev, struct pinctrl_state *st1,
> + struct pinctrl_state *st2)
> +{
> + struct pinctrl_setting *s1, *s2;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(s1, &st1->settings, node) {
> + struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev1;
> + const struct pinctrl_ops *pctlops1;
> + const unsigned *pins1;
> + unsigned num_pins1;
> + int res;
> +
> + if (s1->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
> + continue;
> +
> + pctldev1 = s1->pctldev;
> + pctlops1 = pctldev1->desc->pctlops;
> + res = pctlops1->get_group_pins(pctldev1, s1->data.mux.group,
> + &pins1, &num_pins1);
> + if (res) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "could not get state1 group pins\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(s2, &st2->settings, node) {
> + struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev2;
> + const struct pinctrl_ops *pctlops2;
> + const unsigned *pins2;
> + unsigned num_pins2;
> + int i, j, found = 0;
> +
> + if (s2->type != PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP)
> + continue;
> +
> + pctldev2 = s2->pctldev;
> + if (pctldev1 != pctldev2) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "pctldev must be the same for states\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + pctlops2 = pctldev2->desc->pctlops;
> + res = pctlops2->get_group_pins(pctldev2,
> + s2->data.mux.group,
> + &pins2, &num_pins2);
> + if (res) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "could not get state2 group pins\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < num_pins1; i++) {
> + int pin1 = pins1[i];
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < num_pins2; j++) {
> + int pin2 = pins2[j];
> +
> + if (pin1 == pin2) {
> + found++;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
4 levels of nested loops ? Isn't this way too much ? OTOH, it points to
the fact that, perhaps, a list isn't the best data structure for
pinctrl ??
Or perhaps you could just assume that if num_pins1 == num_pins2 it's
enough ? But that will, likely, leave some uncovered corners...
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
