[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd4dNJpuiMMizYbOpv+pZd30RcNA+kPoF6_4Vukk62iFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:46:21 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxarm@...wei.com, haifeng.wei@...wei.com,
charles.chenxin@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com> wrote:
> This patch switch device node to fwnode in dwapb_port_property,
> so as to apply a unified data structure for DT and ACPI.
>
> This change also needs to be done in intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver,
> since it depends on gpio-dwapb driver.
>
> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
Yes, something like this.
Though I have questions:
- why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls?
What prevents us to move to device property API directly?
> - gpio->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio,
> - &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio);
> + gpio->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, ngpio,
> + &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio);
Are they equivalent?
> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio,
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
> - port->gc.of_node = pp->node;
> + port->gc.of_node = to_of_node(pp->fwnode);
If fwnode is not OF one?
Perhaps, something like ... = is_of_node() ? to_of_node() : NULL;
> - node = dev->of_node;
> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node)
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node))
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check?
>
> - nports = of_get_child_count(node);
> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
> if (nports == 0)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
...I think this one fail if it will not found any child.
> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "reg", &pp->idx) ||
> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) ||
device_property_*() ?
> pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) {
> dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n",
> - port_np->full_name);
> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name);
If it's not OF?
> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "snps,nr-gpios",
> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios",
Ditto.
> &pp->ngpio)) {
> dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n",
> - port_np->full_name);
> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name);
Ditto.
> if (pp->idx == 0 &&
> - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) {
> - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0);
> + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode),
> + "interrupt-controller")) {
device_property_*() ?
> + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0);
> if (!pp->irq) {
> dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n",
> - port_np->full_name);
> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name);
> }
> }
>
> pp->irq_shared = false;
> pp->gpio_base = -1;
> - pp->name = port_np->full_name;
> + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name;
> }
>
> return pdata;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists