[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vfu_6Lw-JbuB0ensrP-9hPDKavaSJO0s3wGM8Vm2Gwuhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 00:05:00 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>,
Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com>,
Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@...g-vd.ch>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iio: accel: adxl345: Setup DATA_READY trigger
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Eva Rachel Retuya <eraretuya@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 02:31:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> [...]
>> > -int adxl345_core_probe(struct device *dev, struct regmap *regmap,
>> > +int adxl345_core_probe(struct device *dev, struct regmap *regmap, int irq,
>> > const char *name);
>>
>> I think I commented this once. Instead of increasing parameters,
>> please introduce a new struct (as separate preparatory patch) which
>> will hold current parameters. Let's call it
>> strut adxl345_chip {
>> struct device *dev;
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>> const char *name;
>> };
>>
>> I insisnt in this chage.
>
> I'm not sure if what you want is more simpler, is it something like what
> this driver does?
Nope. The driver you were referring to does the same you did.
I'm proposing the above struct to be introduced along with changing
prototype like:
-int adxl345_core_probe(struct device *dev, struct regmap *regmap,
const char *name);
+int adxl345_core_probe(struct adxl345_chip *chip);
In next patch adding interrupt would not touch prototypes at all!
>
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/iio/gyro/mpu3050.h#L41
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/iio/gyro/mpu3050-i2c.c#L34
>> > +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>
>> Can we get rid of gnostic resource providers?
>>
>
> I'm uninformed and still learning. Please let me know how to approach
> this in some other way.
I suppose something like platform_get_irq(); to use.
But it would be nice to you to investigate more.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists