Le mercredi 24 janvier 2024 à 16:04 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski a
écrit :

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 3:59 PM Paul Cercueil [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Hi Bartosz,

Le mardi 05 septembre 2023 à 20:53 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski a
écrit :

quoted

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <redacted>

We're porting all users of gpiochip_find() to using
gpio_device_find().
Update the swnode GPIO code.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski
[off-list ref]
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c

b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-
swnode.c
index b5a6eaf3729b..56c8519be538 100644

--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c

@@ -31,31 +31,26 @@ static void swnode_format_propname(const char

*con_id, char *propname,
              strscpy(propname, "gpios", max_size);
 }

-static int swnode_gpiochip_match_name(struct gpio_chip *chip,
void
*data)
+static struct gpio_device *swnode_get_gpio_device(struct
fwnode_handle *fwnode)
 {
-     return !strcmp(chip->label, data);
-}
+     const struct software_node *gdev_node;
+     struct gpio_device *gdev;

-static struct gpio_chip *swnode_get_chip(struct fwnode_handle
*fwnode)
-{
-     const struct software_node *chip_node;
-     struct gpio_chip *chip;
-
-     chip_node = to_software_node(fwnode);
-     if (!chip_node || !chip_node->name)
+     gdev_node = to_software_node(fwnode);
+     if (!gdev_node || !gdev_node->name)
              return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

-     chip = gpiochip_find((void *)chip_node->name,
swnode_gpiochip_match_name);
-     return chip ?: ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
+     gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label((void *)gdev_node->name);
+     return gdev ?: ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
 }

 struct gpio_desc *swnode_find_gpio(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
                                 const char *con_id, unsigned int
idx,
                                 unsigned long *flags)
 {
+     struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
      const struct software_node *swnode;
      struct fwnode_reference_args args;
-     struct gpio_chip *chip;
      struct gpio_desc *desc;
      char propname[32]; /* 32 is max size of property name */
      int error;

@@ -77,12 +72,12 @@ struct gpio_desc *swnode_find_gpio(struct

fwnode_handle *fwnode,
              return ERR_PTR(error);
      }

-     chip = swnode_get_chip(args.fwnode);
+     gdev = swnode_get_gpio_device(args.fwnode);
      fwnode_handle_put(args.fwnode);
-     if (IS_ERR(chip))
-             return ERR_CAST(chip);
+     if (IS_ERR(gdev))
+             return ERR_CAST(gdev);

I'm a bit late to the party, sorry.

I'm looking at how __free() should be used to use it in my own
patchset, and I was wondering if this code actually works.

What happens if swnode_get_gpio_device() returns an error pointer?
Won't that cause a call to gpio_device_put() with the invalid
pointer?

Cheers,
-Paul

No. because the __free() callback is defined as:

DEFINE_FREE(gpio_device_put, struct gpio_device *,
    if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(_T)) gpio_device_put(_T))

Disregard my previous email, I'm stupid. This actually checks that the
pointer is non-null.

Cheers,
-Paul

Bart

quoted

quoted

-     desc = gpiochip_get_desc(chip, args.args[0]);
+     desc = gpiochip_get_desc(gdev->chip, args.args[0]);
      *flags = args.args[1]; /* We expect native GPIO flags */

      pr_debug("%s: parsed '%s' property of node '%pfwP[%d]' -
status (%d)\n",

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