Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-imx: fix map setting problem if NO_PAD_CTL

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

Dong Aisheng wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:41:41PM +0800, Hui Wang wrote:
new_map is allocated according to map_num instead of grp->npins,
if a pin or some pins of a group has NO_PAD_CTL property, the map_num
and the grp->npin are different definitely.

When we set mapping information to the new_map[], we should skip those
pins with NO_PAD_CTL from index, otherwise it is possible the driver
will aceesss to a unallocated region.

Good catching.
Thanks.

Cc: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Hui Wang <jason77.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
---
This problem is easily reproduced if we set pinctrl in the
${board}.dts like following:
fsl,pins = <pin_func_id1   config_with_NO_PAD_CTL
            pin_func_id2   config_with_NO_PAD_CTL
            pin_func_id3   config_normal>;

 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
index dd6d93a..0e21abb 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-imx.c
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ static int imx_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
 	struct pinctrl_map *new_map;
 	struct device_node *parent;
 	int map_num = 1;
+	int map_pos = 0;
 	int i;
/*
@@ -186,11 +187,11 @@ static int imx_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
 	new_map++;
 	for (i = 0; i < grp->npins; i++) {
 		if (!(grp->configs[i] & IMX_NO_PAD_CTL)) {
-			new_map[i].type = PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN;
-			new_map[i].data.configs.group_or_pin =
+			new_map[map_pos].type = PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN;
+			new_map[map_pos].data.configs.group_or_pin =
 					pin_get_name(pctldev, grp->pins[i]);
-			new_map[i].data.configs.configs = &grp->configs[i];
-			new_map[i].data.configs.num_configs = 1;
+			new_map[map_pos].data.configs.configs = &grp->configs[i];
+			new_map[map_pos++].data.configs.num_configs = 1;
I'm ok with the change, only a minor comment:
Does the change as follows look better?
It is fine to me. Do you need me to prepare a new patch as your suggestion?

Regards,
Hui.
-       for (i = 0; i < grp->npins; i++) {
+       for (i = j = 0; i < grp->npins; i++) {
                if (!(grp->configs[i] & IMX_NO_PAD_CTL)) {
-                       new_map[i].type = PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN;
-                       new_map[i].data.configs.group_or_pin =
+                       new_map[j].type = PIN_MAP_TYPE_CONFIGS_PIN;
+                       new_map[j].data.configs.group_or_pin =
                                        pin_get_name(pctldev, grp->pins[i]);
-                       new_map[i].data.configs.configs = &grp->configs[i];
-                       new_map[i].data.configs.num_configs = 1;
+                       new_map[j].data.configs.configs = &grp->configs[i];
+                       new_map[j].data.configs.num_configs = 1;
+                       j++;

Regards
Dong Aisheng




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


[Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [PDAs]     [Linux]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Photos]

Add to Google Follow linuxarm on Twitter