Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1377560 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-13 09:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-13 17:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry to use __ffs than ffs Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> - 2016-04-13 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry to use __ffs than ffs Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2016-04-13 17:50 +0200
| From | Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 09:10 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry to use __ffs than ffs |
| Message-ID | <rnn62-5Id-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry uses ffs which gives bit indices
ranging from 1 to MAX. This leads to a corner case where we try to request
the pin number = MAX and fails.
bit_pos value is being calculted using ffs. pin_num_from_lsb uses
bit_pos value. pins array is populated with:
pin + pin_num_from_lsb.
The above is 1 more than usual bit indices as bit_pos uses ffs to compute
first set bit. Hence the last of the pins array is populated with the MAX
value and not MAX - 1 which causes error when we call pin_request.
mask_pos is rightly calculated as ((pcs->fmask) << (bit_pos - 1))
Consequently val_pos and submask are correct.
Hence use __ffs which gives (ffs(x) - 1) as the first bit set.
fixes: 4e7e8017a8 ("pinctrl: pinctrl-single: enhance to configure multiple pins of different modules")
Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
---
Boot tested on da850-evm
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
index 748c047..897b89b 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
@@ -1323,9 +1323,9 @@ static int pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry(struct pcs_device *pcs,
/* Parse pins in each row from LSB */
while (mask) {
- bit_pos = ffs(mask);
+ bit_pos = __ffs(mask);
pin_num_from_lsb = bit_pos / pcs->bits_per_pin;
- mask_pos = ((pcs->fmask) << (bit_pos - 1));
+ mask_pos = ((pcs->fmask) << bit_pos);
val_pos = val & mask_pos;
submask = mask & mask_pos;
--
1.9.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 17:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: Fix pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry to use __ffs than ffs |
| Message-ID | <rnvdh-3q8-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1377560 |
* Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> [160413 00:03]:
> pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry uses ffs which gives bit indices
> ranging from 1 to MAX. This leads to a corner case where we try to request
> the pin number = MAX and fails.
>
> bit_pos value is being calculted using ffs. pin_num_from_lsb uses
> bit_pos value. pins array is populated with:
>
> pin + pin_num_from_lsb.
>
> The above is 1 more than usual bit indices as bit_pos uses ffs to compute
> first set bit. Hence the last of the pins array is populated with the MAX
> value and not MAX - 1 which causes error when we call pin_request.
Hmm that sounds like a bug to me, just one comment below.
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> @@ -1323,9 +1323,9 @@ static int pcs_parse_bits_in_pinctrl_entry(struct pcs_device *pcs,
>
> /* Parse pins in each row from LSB */
> while (mask) {
> - bit_pos = ffs(mask);
> + bit_pos = __ffs(mask);
> pin_num_from_lsb = bit_pos / pcs->bits_per_pin;
> - mask_pos = ((pcs->fmask) << (bit_pos - 1));
> + mask_pos = ((pcs->fmask) << bit_pos);
> val_pos = val & mask_pos;
> submask = mask & mask_pos;
Can you please also change the pcs->fshift = ffs(pcs->fmask) - 1 to
use __ffs to avoid confusion?
Regards,
Tony
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web