[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[David Lechner]

This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
pins per register feature was added.

Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
---

v2 changes:
- don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
  readable line.

There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
macros can be introduced in another patch.

 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
 			|| pin < frange->offset)
 			continue;
 		mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
-		data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
-		data |= frange->gpiofunc;
-		pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+
+		if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
+			int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
+
+			byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
+			offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
+			pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
+				    pcs->bits_per_pin;
+
+			data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
+			data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
+			data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
+			pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
+		} else {
+			data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+			data &= ~pcs->fmask;
+			data |= frange->gpiofunc;
+			pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+		}
 		break;
 	}
 	return 0;
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[David Lechner]

This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
pins per register feature was added.

Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
---

v2 changes:
- don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
  readable line.

There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
macros can be introduced in another patch.

 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
 			|| pin < frange->offset)
 			continue;
 		mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
-		data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
-		data |= frange->gpiofunc;
-		pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+
+		if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
+			int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
+
+			byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
+			offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
+			pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
+				    pcs->bits_per_pin;
+
+			data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
+			data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
+			data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
+			pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
+		} else {
+			data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+			data &= ~pcs->fmask;
+			data |= frange->gpiofunc;
+			pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+		}
 		break;
 	}
 	return 0;
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[David Lechner]

This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
pins per register feature was added.

Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
---

v2 changes:
- don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
  readable line.

There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
macros can be introduced in another patch.

 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
 			|| pin < frange->offset)
 			continue;
 		mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
-		data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
-		data |= frange->gpiofunc;
-		pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+
+		if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
+			int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
+
+			byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
+			offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
+			pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
+				    pcs->bits_per_pin;
+
+			data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
+			data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
+			data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
+			pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
+		} else {
+			data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+			data &= ~pcs->fmask;
+			data |= frange->gpiofunc;
+			pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
+		}
 		break;
 	}
 	return 0;
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> pins per register feature was added.
>
> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
>
> v2 changes:
> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>   readable line.
>
> There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
> the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
> macros can be introduced in another patch.
>
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> @@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>                         || pin < frange->offset)
>                         continue;

>                 mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> -               data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
> -               data |= frange->gpiofunc;
> -               pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> +
> +               if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
> +                       int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
> +
> +                       byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> +                       offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
> +                       pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
> +                                   pcs->bits_per_pin;
> +
> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
> +                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
> +               } else {

> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> +                       data &= ~pcs->fmask;
> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc;
> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);

Just an idea, you may leave this almost untouched and do calculate
pin_shift and offset in condition, like

if (...) {
 pin_shift = ...
 offset = ...
} else {
 pin_shift = 0;
 offset = pin * mux_bytes;
}

                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);

It's also possible to split to two changes, where first introduces
that variables and their default values (see 'else' branch) and second
one introduces an if branch override.

> +               }
>                 break;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> pins per register feature was added.
>
> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
>
> v2 changes:
> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>   readable line.
>
> There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
> the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
> macros can be introduced in another patch.
>
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> @@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>                         || pin < frange->offset)
>                         continue;

>                 mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> -               data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
> -               data |= frange->gpiofunc;
> -               pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> +
> +               if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
> +                       int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
> +
> +                       byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> +                       offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
> +                       pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
> +                                   pcs->bits_per_pin;
> +
> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
> +                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
> +               } else {

> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> +                       data &= ~pcs->fmask;
> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc;
> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);

Just an idea, you may leave this almost untouched and do calculate
pin_shift and offset in condition, like

if (...) {
 pin_shift = ...
 offset = ...
} else {
 pin_shift = 0;
 offset = pin * mux_bytes;
}

                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);

It's also possible to split to two changes, where first introduces
that variables and their default values (see 'else' branch) and second
one introduces an if branch override.

> +               }
>                 break;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> pins per register feature was added.
>
> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
>
> v2 changes:
> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>   readable line.
>
> There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
> the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
> macros can be introduced in another patch.
>
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> @@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>                         || pin < frange->offset)
>                         continue;

>                 mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> -               data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
> -               data |= frange->gpiofunc;
> -               pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> +
> +               if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
> +                       int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
> +
> +                       byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
> +                       offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
> +                       pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
> +                                   pcs->bits_per_pin;
> +
> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
> +                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
> +               } else {

> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> +                       data &= ~pcs->fmask;
> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc;
> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);

Just an idea, you may leave this almost untouched and do calculate
pin_shift and offset in condition, like

if (...) {
 pin_shift = ...
 offset = ...
} else {
 pin_shift = 0;
 offset = pin * mux_bytes;
}

                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);

It's also possible to split to two changes, where first introduces
that variables and their default values (see 'else' branch) and second
one introduces an if branch override.

> +               }
>                 break;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[David Lechner]

On 02/20/2018 06:56 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
>> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
>> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
>> pins per register feature was added.
>>
>> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
>> ---
>>
>> v2 changes:
>> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>>    readable line.
>>
>> There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
>> the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
>> macros can be introduced in another patch.
>>
>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> @@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>>                          || pin < frange->offset)
>>                          continue;
> 
>>                  mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> -               data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
>> -               data |= frange->gpiofunc;
>> -               pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
>> +
>> +               if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
>> +                       int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
>> +
>> +                       byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> +                       offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
>> +                       pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
>> +                                   pcs->bits_per_pin;
>> +
>> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
>> +                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
>> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
>> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
>> +               } else {
> 
>> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
>> +                       data &= ~pcs->fmask;
>> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc;
>> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> 
> Just an idea, you may leave this almost untouched and do calculate
> pin_shift and offset in condition, like
> 
> if (...) {
>   pin_shift = ...
>   offset = ...
> } else {
>   pin_shift = 0;
>   offset = pin * mux_bytes;
> }
> 
>                         data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
>                         data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
>                         data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
>                         pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
> 
> It's also possible to split to two changes, where first introduces
> that variables and their default values (see 'else' branch) and second
> one introduces an if branch override.
> 
>> +               }
>>                  break;
> 

Yes, there are many ways this could be done. However, I would like
to just leave it as it is since it matches the patterns used
elsewhere in this file.

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[David Lechner]

On 02/20/2018 06:56 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
>> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
>> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
>> pins per register feature was added.
>>
>> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
>> ---
>>
>> v2 changes:
>> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>>    readable line.
>>
>> There was some discussion in v1 about using DIV_ROUND_UP(), etc. macros, but
>> the consensus was to leave it as-is since it matches existing code and that
>> macros can be introduced in another patch.
>>
>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> index cec7537..a7c5eb3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> @@ -391,9 +391,25 @@ static int pcs_request_gpio(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>>                          || pin < frange->offset)
>>                          continue;
> 
>>                  mux_bytes = pcs->width / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> -               data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes) & ~pcs->fmask;
>> -               data |= frange->gpiofunc;
>> -               pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
>> +
>> +               if (pcs->bits_per_mux) {
>> +                       int byte_num, offset, pin_shift;
>> +
>> +                       byte_num = (pcs->bits_per_pin * pin) / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> +                       offset = (byte_num / mux_bytes) * mux_bytes;
>> +                       pin_shift = pin % (pcs->width / pcs->bits_per_pin) *
>> +                                   pcs->bits_per_pin;
>> +
>> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
>> +                       data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
>> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
>> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
>> +               } else {
> 
>> +                       data = pcs->read(pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
>> +                       data &= ~pcs->fmask;
>> +                       data |= frange->gpiofunc;
>> +                       pcs->write(data, pcs->base + pin * mux_bytes);
> 
> Just an idea, you may leave this almost untouched and do calculate
> pin_shift and offset in condition, like
> 
> if (...) {
>   pin_shift = ...
>   offset = ...
> } else {
>   pin_shift = 0;
>   offset = pin * mux_bytes;
> }
> 
>                         data = pcs->read(pcs->base + offset);
>                         data &= ~(pcs->fmask << pin_shift);
>                         data |= frange->gpiofunc << pin_shift;
>                         pcs->write(data, pcs->base + offset);
> 
> It's also possible to split to two changes, where first introduces
> that variables and their default values (see 'else' branch) and second
> one introduces an if branch override.
> 
>> +               }
>>                  break;
> 

Yes, there are many ways this could be done. However, I would like
to just leave it as it is since it matches the patterns used
elsewhere in this file.

Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:

> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> pins per register feature was added.
>
> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
>
> v2 changes:
> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>   readable line.

Tony/Haojian: are you OK with this change?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:

> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> pins per register feature was added.
>
> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> ---
>
> v2 changes:
> - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>   readable line.

Tony/Haojian: are you OK with this change?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Tony Lindgren]

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [180323 03:02]:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
> 
> > This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> > bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> > pins per register feature was added.
> >
> > Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> > ---
> >
> > v2 changes:
> > - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
> >   readable line.
> 
> Tony/Haojian: are you OK with this change?

No objections from me, would be good if Haojian could
test it with his test cases though.

Regards,

Tony

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Tony Lindgren]

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [180323 03:02]:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
> 
> > This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> > bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> > pins per register feature was added.
> >
> > Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
> > ---
> >
> > v2 changes:
> > - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
> >   readable line.
> 
> Tony/Haojian: are you OK with this change?

No objections from me, would be good if Haojian could
test it with his test cases though.

Regards,

Tony

Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:

> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> pins per register feature was added.
>
> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>

Patch applied for v4.17 with Tony's ACK.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:

> This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
> bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
> pins per register feature was added.
>
> Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>

Patch applied for v4.17 with Tony's ACK.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [180323 03:02]:
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
>> > bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
>> > pins per register feature was added.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
>> > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > v2 changes:
>> > - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>> >   readable line.
>>
>> Tony/Haojian: are you OK with this change?
>
> No objections from me, would be good if Haojian could
> test it with his test cases though.

I applied it for v4.17 recording this as an ACK :)

If there are problems I bet we will notice in the -rc phase.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[PATCH v2] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_request_gpio() when bits_per_mux != 0

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [180323 03:02]:
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This fixes pcs_request_gpio() in the pinctrl-single driver when
>> > bits_per_mux != 0. It appears this was overlooked when the multiple
>> > pins per register feature was added.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 4e7e8017a80e ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
>> > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > v2 changes:
>> > - don't wrap Fixes: line in commit message since it is a special machine-
>> >   readable line.
>>
>> Tony/Haojian: are you OK with this change?
>
> No objections from me, would be good if Haojian could
> test it with his test cases though.

I applied it for v4.17 recording this as an ACK :)

If there are problems I bet we will notice in the -rc phase.

Yours,
Linus Walleij