Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] gpio: add support for the sl28cpld GPIO controller
From: Michael Walle <hidden>
Date: 2020-06-05 18:44:57
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-gpio, linux-hwmon, linux-pwm, linux-watchdog, lkml
Am 2020-06-05 15:15, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 02:42:53PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:quoted
Am 2020-06-05 14:00, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:quoted
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:14 AM Michael Walle [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
+ return devm_regmap_add_irq_chip_np(dev, dev_of_node(dev), regmap,It seems regmap needs to be converted to use fwnode.Mhh, this _np functions was actually part of this series in the beginning.Then, please, make them fwnode aware rather than OF centric.
ok
quoted
quoted
quoted
IRQF_ONESHOT, 0, + irq_chip, &gpio->irq_data);...quoted
quoted
quoted
+ dev_id = platform_get_device_id(pdev); + if (dev_id) + type = dev_id->driver_data;Oh, no. In new code we don't need this. We have facilities to provide platform data in a form of fwnode.Ok I'll look into that. But I already have a question, so there are of_property_read_xx(), which seems to be the old functions, then there is device_property_read_xx() and fwnode_property_read_xx(). What is the difference between the latter two?It's easy. device_*() requires struct device to be established for this, so, operates only against devices, while the fwnode_*() operates on pure data which might or might not be related to any devices. If you understand OF examples better, consider device node vs. child of such node.
Ahh thanks, got it.
...quoted
quoted
quoted
+ if (irq_support &&Why do you need this flag? Can't simple IRQ number be sufficient?I want to make sure, the is no misconfiguration. Eg. only GPIO flavors which has irq_support set, have the additional interrupt registers.In gpio-dwapb, for example, we simple check two things: a) hardware limitation (if IRQ is assigned to a proper port) and b) if there is any IRQ comes from DT, ACPI, etc.
I can't follow you here. irq_support is like your (a); or the "pp->idx == 0" in your example.
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "interrupt-controller")) { + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); + if (irq < 0) + return irq; + + ret = sl28cpld_gpio_irq_init(&pdev->dev, gpio, regmap, + base, irq); + if (ret) + return ret; + + config.irq_domain = regmap_irq_get_domain(gpio->irq_data); + }...quoted
quoted
quoted
+ { .compatible = "kontron,sl28cpld-gpio", + .data = (void *)SL28CPLD_GPIO }, + { .compatible = "kontron,sl28cpld-gpi", + .data = (void *)SL28CPLD_GPI }, + { .compatible = "kontron,sl28cpld-gpo", + .data = (void *)SL28CPLD_GPO },All above can be twice less LOCs.They are longer than 80 chars. Or do I miss something?We have 100 :-)
oh come on, since 6 days *g*
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ .name = KBUILD_MODNAME,This actually not good idea in long term. File name can change and break an ABI.Ahh an explanation, why this is bad. Ok makes sense, although to be fair, .id_table should be used for the driver name matching. I'm not sure if this is used somewhere else, though.I saw in my practice chain of renames for a driver. Now, if somebody somewhere would like to instantiate a platform driver by its name... Oops, ABI breakage. And of course using platform data for such device makes less sense.
i just removed the id_table from all drivers anyways. -michael