From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752810Ab2BTGtn (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:49:43 -0500 Received: from hqemgate03.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.140]:19407 "EHLO hqemgate03.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752190Ab2BTGrC (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:47:02 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp06.nvidia.com on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:46:15 -0800 From: Stephen Warren To: Linus Walleij Cc: B29396@freescale.com, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, dongas86@gmail.com, shawn.guo@linaro.org, thomas.abraham@linaro.org, tony@atomide.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren Subject: [PATCH 11/20] pinctrl: Downgrade pinctrl_get warning when no maps are found Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:45:51 -0700 Message-Id: <1329720360-23227-12-git-send-email-swarren@nvidia.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.5.4 In-Reply-To: <1329720360-23227-1-git-send-email-swarren@nvidia.com> References: <1329720360-23227-1-git-send-email-swarren@nvidia.com> X-NVConfidentiality: public Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This may be perfectly legitimate. An IP block may get re-used across SoCs. Not all of those SoCs may need pinmux settings for the IP block, e.g. if one SoC dedicates pins to that function but another doesn't. The driver won't know this, and will always attempt to set up the pinmux. The mapping table defines whether any HW programming is actually needed. Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren --- drivers/pinctrl/core.c | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c index 37dfac7..54e24f7 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c @@ -542,13 +542,16 @@ static struct pinctrl *pinctrl_get_locked(struct device *dev, const char *name) num_maps++; } - /* We should have atleast one map, right */ - if (!num_maps) { - pr_err("could not find any mux maps for device %s, ID %s\n", - devname, name); - kfree(p); - return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); - } + /* + * This may be perfectly legitimate. An IP block may get re-used + * across SoCs. Not all of those SoCs may need pinmux settings for the + * IP block, e.g. if one SoC dedicates pins to that function but + * another doesn't. The driver won't know this, and will always + * attempt to set up the pinmux. The mapping table defines whether any + * HW programming is actually needed. + */ + if (!num_maps) + dev_info(dev, "zero maps found for state %s\n", name); pr_debug("found %u mux maps for device %s, UD %s\n", num_maps, devname, name); -- 1.7.5.4