linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Spreadtrum SC9860 platform

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:32:55 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Spreadtrum SC9860 platform

On 1 February 2018 at 23:31, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org> wrote:
>> The Spreadtrum SC9860 platform GPIO controller contains 16 groups and
>> each group contains 16 GPIOs. Each GPIO can set input/output and has
>> the interrupt capability.
>
> Just noticed couple of more improvements you can do.
>
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 1);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_edge_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 0);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_edge_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 1);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_edge_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 1);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 1);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_level_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 1);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 0);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_level_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       default:
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>
> I guess you can use fallthrough and reduce some lines, but I have no
> strong opinion which will look better.

Um, we need keep the sequence of updating registers and each irq type
has different register updating. So I think current code can make
things clear.

>
>> +       res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> +       sprd_gpio->base = devm_ioremap_nocache(&pdev->dev, res->start,
>> +                                              resource_size(res));
>
> Didn't notice before, why not to simple call devm_ioremap_resource() ?

Ah, you are correct, I missed devm_ioremap_resource(). Will change in
next version. Thanks.

-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards