From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] sh-pfc: do not call sh_pfc_get_pin_index() when unnecessary Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:42:41 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <55888F61.800@cogentembedded.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1860613.5T71vLz0D7@avalon> Hello. On 06/18/2015 10:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Calling sh_pfc_get_pin_index() to calculate a pin index based on the >> collected pin range data is unnecessary when we're dealing with >> 'pfc->info->pins' and 'chip->pins' arrays as those always reperesent the >> pins starting from index 0 sequentially. Being a mere optimization at >> this time, this change will become crucial when we'll allow the "holes" in >> those arrays... > Pin information is stored in per-SoC pins arrays (a.k.a. pfc->info->pins). The > driver support two models to number pins: > - The sequential model, in which pins are numbered sequentially starting at 0. > Pin numbers are equal to the index in the array. And I didn't touch this case. > - The explicit numbering model, in which each pin entry has an explicit number > (stored in struct sh_pfc_pin.pin). Pins numbers are not necessarily equal to > the index of the pin entry in the array. Ah... I was just looking at _GP_GPIO() which still assigns sequential pin #'s equal to the indices. > The sh_pfc_get_pin_index() function converts a pin number to the pin index in > the pins array. > Let's consider the sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() from which your patch removes the > call to sh_pfc_get_pin_index() and uses the pin number directly. The function > is called from the .pin_config_get() and .pin_config_set() handlers. One > possible call path is > pinconf_pins_show() -> pinconf_dump_pin() -> pinconf_dump_pins() -> > pinconf_generic_dump_pins() -> pinconf_generic_dump_one() -> > pin_config_get_for_pin() -> .pin_config_get() > The pin value passed to the .pin_config_get() function is pctldev->desc-> > pins[i].number, which is the pin number, not its index. It thus looks like > this patch introduces a bug. > There might be something obvious I'm not getting though, so please feel free > to prove me wrong. The bug seems more like theoretical one at this point (unless you have the examples with non-sequential pin #'s)... WBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sh" in
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] sh-pfc: do not call sh_pfc_get_pin_index() when unnecessary Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:42:41 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <55888F61.800@cogentembedded.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1860613.5T71vLz0D7@avalon> Hello. On 06/18/2015 10:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Calling sh_pfc_get_pin_index() to calculate a pin index based on the >> collected pin range data is unnecessary when we're dealing with >> 'pfc->info->pins' and 'chip->pins' arrays as those always reperesent the >> pins starting from index 0 sequentially. Being a mere optimization at >> this time, this change will become crucial when we'll allow the "holes" in >> those arrays... > Pin information is stored in per-SoC pins arrays (a.k.a. pfc->info->pins). The > driver support two models to number pins: > - The sequential model, in which pins are numbered sequentially starting at 0. > Pin numbers are equal to the index in the array. And I didn't touch this case. > - The explicit numbering model, in which each pin entry has an explicit number > (stored in struct sh_pfc_pin.pin). Pins numbers are not necessarily equal to > the index of the pin entry in the array. Ah... I was just looking at _GP_GPIO() which still assigns sequential pin #'s equal to the indices. > The sh_pfc_get_pin_index() function converts a pin number to the pin index in > the pins array. > Let's consider the sh_pfc_pinconf_validate() from which your patch removes the > call to sh_pfc_get_pin_index() and uses the pin number directly. The function > is called from the .pin_config_get() and .pin_config_set() handlers. One > possible call path is > pinconf_pins_show() -> pinconf_dump_pin() -> pinconf_dump_pins() -> > pinconf_generic_dump_pins() -> pinconf_generic_dump_one() -> > pin_config_get_for_pin() -> .pin_config_get() > The pin value passed to the .pin_config_get() function is pctldev->desc-> > pins[i].number, which is the pin number, not its index. It thus looks like > this patch introduces a bug. > There might be something obvious I'm not getting though, so please feel free > to prove me wrong. The bug seems more like theoretical one at this point (unless you have the examples with non-sequential pin #'s)... WBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-22 22:42 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-06-04 23:23 [PATCH v2 0/4] sh-pfc: handle pin array holes in sh_pfc_map_pins() Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:23 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sh-pfc: do not call sh_pfc_get_pin_index() when unnecessary Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:25 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-18 19:05 ` Laurent Pinchart 2015-06-18 19:05 ` Laurent Pinchart 2015-06-22 22:42 ` Sergei Shtylyov [this message] 2015-06-22 22:42 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-23 20:00 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-23 20:00 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:27 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] sh-pfc: handle pin array holes Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:27 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] sh-pfc: r8a7790: remove non-existing GPIO pins Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:30 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:31 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] sh-pfc: r8a7791 " Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:31 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:42 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] sh-pfc: handle pin array holes in sh_pfc_map_pins() Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-04 23:42 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-10 7:49 ` Linus Walleij 2015-06-10 7:49 ` Linus Walleij 2015-06-10 12:11 ` Sergei Shtylyov 2015-06-10 12:11 ` Sergei Shtylyov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=55888F61.800@cogentembedded.com \ --to=sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com \ --cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \ --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \ --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.