Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] pinctrl: add pinctrl gpio binding support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/26/2012 10:52 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2012 07:36 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
...
>> If we don't do that, [lock ranges[i].gc] I would argue that we
>> shouldn't store ranges[i].gc, since it might become invalid - I
>> believe the only use of it is withinthis function?
>>
> In my option, i think it's ok to store it since they're just some data
> to describe
> hw properties. The gpio function may become invalid but not data.
> Is it reasonable to you?

The problem is that if someone tries to dereference the gc field, and
it's no longer valid, which could cause an OOPS. Perhaps we can get away
just with a comment in the struct definition indicating that this field
should only be used by drivers that provided the gc field directly
rather than having it set up by DT, but then why even store it when
creating the ranges from DT in that case?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [CentOS ARM]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]

  Powered by Linux