[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ac280ab-08f1-b031-e21b-49390182f090@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:23:55 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@...soc.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
Cc: linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
wenhua lin <wenhua.lin1994@...il.com>,
Xiongpeng Wu <xiongpeng.wu@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: sprd: Modify the calculation method of eic
number
On 8/8/2023 11:31 AM, Wenhua Lin wrote:
> Automatic calculation through matching nodes,
> subsequent projects can avoid modifying driver files.
Please describe the problem in detail, not only what you did.
> Signed-off-by: Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@...soc.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c
> index 84352a6f4973..0d85d9e80848 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c
> @@ -50,10 +50,10 @@
> #define SPRD_EIC_SYNC_DATA 0x1c
>
> /*
> - * The digital-chip EIC controller can support maximum 3 banks, and each bank
> + * The digital-chip EIC controller can support maximum 8 banks, and each bank
Can you explicit on which controller can support 8 banks in the commit
log? And you did not change all the related comments in this file.
> * contains 8 EICs.
> */
> -#define SPRD_EIC_MAX_BANK 3
> +#define SPRD_EIC_MAX_BANK 8
> #define SPRD_EIC_PER_BANK_NR 8
> #define SPRD_EIC_DATA_MASK GENMASK(7, 0)
> #define SPRD_EIC_BIT(x) ((x) & (SPRD_EIC_PER_BANK_NR - 1))
> @@ -99,33 +99,32 @@ struct sprd_eic {
>
> struct sprd_eic_variant_data {
> enum sprd_eic_type type;
> - u32 num_eics;
> };
>
> +#define SPRD_EIC_VAR_DATA(soc_name) \
> +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_dbnc_data = { \
> + .type = SPRD_EIC_DEBOUNCE, \
> +}; \
> + \
> +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_latch_data = { \
> + .type = SPRD_EIC_LATCH, \
> +}; \
> + \
> +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_async_data = { \
> + .type = SPRD_EIC_ASYNC, \
> +}; \
> + \
> +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_sync_data = { \
> + .type = SPRD_EIC_SYNC, \
> +}
> +
> +SPRD_EIC_VAR_DATA(sc9860);
> +
> static const char *sprd_eic_label_name[SPRD_EIC_MAX] = {
> "eic-debounce", "eic-latch", "eic-async",
> "eic-sync",
> };
>
> -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_dbnc_data = {
> - .type = SPRD_EIC_DEBOUNCE,
> - .num_eics = 8,
> -};
> -
> -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_latch_data = {
> - .type = SPRD_EIC_LATCH,
> - .num_eics = 8,
> -};
> -
> -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_async_data = {
> - .type = SPRD_EIC_ASYNC,
> - .num_eics = 8,
> -};
> -
> -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_sync_data = {
> - .type = SPRD_EIC_SYNC,
> - .num_eics = 8,
> -};
If you want to introduce a readable macro, that's fine, but it should be
split into a separate patch.
> static inline void __iomem *sprd_eic_offset_base(struct sprd_eic *sprd_eic,
> unsigned int bank)
> @@ -583,6 +582,7 @@ static int sprd_eic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct sprd_eic *sprd_eic;
> struct resource *res;
> int ret, i;
> + u16 num_banks = 0;
>
> pdata = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> if (!pdata) {
> @@ -613,12 +613,13 @@ static int sprd_eic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> break;
>
> sprd_eic->base[i] = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> + num_banks++;
> if (IS_ERR(sprd_eic->base[i]))
> return PTR_ERR(sprd_eic->base[i]);
> }
>
> sprd_eic->chip.label = sprd_eic_label_name[sprd_eic->type];
> - sprd_eic->chip.ngpio = pdata->num_eics;
> + sprd_eic->chip.ngpio = num_banks * SPRD_EIC_PER_BANK_NR;
This change looks good to me, and this seems a software bug in the
original driver. So I think this change should be moved into a separate
patch with a suitable Fixes tag.
> sprd_eic->chip.base = -1;
> sprd_eic->chip.parent = &pdev->dev;
> sprd_eic->chip.direction_input = sprd_eic_direction_input;
> @@ -630,10 +631,12 @@ static int sprd_eic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> sprd_eic->chip.set = sprd_eic_set;
> fallthrough;
> case SPRD_EIC_ASYNC:
> + fallthrough;
> case SPRD_EIC_SYNC:
> sprd_eic->chip.get = sprd_eic_get;
> break;
> case SPRD_EIC_LATCH:
> + fallthrough;
Do not add unreated changes that you did not mentioned in the commit log.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists