[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaNs+NmAbuwRYzn1xgjHy=7ZknJa-GD1+Q8HBsu53KQqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:15:16 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Ian Lartey <ian@...mlogic.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, swarren@...dotorg.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
rob.herring@...xeda.com, rob@...dley.net, mturquette@...aro.org,
cooloney@...il.com, rpurdie@...ys.net, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
wim@...ana.be, lgirdwood@...il.com, gg@...mlogic.co.uk,
j-keerthy@...com, ldewangan@...dia.com, t-kristo@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/12] gpio: palmas: add in GPIO support for palmas charger
Sorry for slow replies :-(
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Ian Lartey <ian@...mlogic.co.uk> wrote:
> +static int palmas_gpio_read(struct palmas *palmas, unsigned int reg,
> + int gpio, unsigned int *dest)
I don't like "int gpio" here, please use "int offset".
This is not a global GPIO number, it is an offset in the local gpio_chip,
right?
> +{
> + /* registers for second bank are identical and offset by 0x9 */
> + if (gpio > 7)
> + reg += PALMAS_GPIO_DATA_IN2;
> +
> + return palmas_read(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_BASE, reg, dest);
> +}
> +
> +static int palmas_gpio_write(struct palmas *palmas, unsigned int reg,
> + int gpio, unsigned int data)
> +{
> + /* registers for second bank are identical and offset by 0x9 */
> + if (gpio > 7)
> + reg += PALMAS_GPIO_DATA_IN2;
> +
> + return palmas_write(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_BASE, reg, data);
> +}
> +
> +static int palmas_gpio_update_bits(struct palmas *palmas, unsigned int reg,
> + int gpio, unsigned int mask, unsigned int data)
> +{
> + /* registers for second bank are identical and offset by 0x9 */
> + if (gpio > 7)
> + reg += PALMAS_GPIO_DATA_IN2;
> +
> + return palmas_update_bits(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_BASE, reg, mask, data);
> +}
> - ret = palmas_read(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_BASE, PALMAS_GPIO_DATA_IN, &val);
> + ret = palmas_gpio_read(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_DATA_IN, offset, &val);
(Obviously you are passing the offset.)
> + ret = palmas_gpio_write(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_SET_DATA_OUT,
> + offset, BIT(offset % 8));
(..)
> + ret = palmas_gpio_write(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_CLEAR_DATA_OUT,
> + offset, BIT(offset % 8));
(...)
> + ret = palmas_gpio_update_bits(palmas, PALMAS_GPIO_DATA_DIR,
> + offset, 1 << (offset % 8), 1 << (offset % 8));
Why aren't you using the BIT() macro here too?
Further: if these functions are always used like this, with offset
and some BIT() or (1 << (offset % 8)) why don't you move that
latter part into the static helper and just pass offset into the
helper?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists