[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPWvWwMd6HqZQqES@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 13:20:11 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: sim: don't fiddle with GPIOLIB private members
On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>
> We access internals of struct gpio_device and struct gpio_desc because
> it's easier but it can actually be avoided and we're working towards a
> better encapsulation of GPIO data structures across the kernel so let's
> start at home.
>
> Instead of checking gpio_desc flags, let's just track the requests of
> GPIOs in the driver. We also already store the information about
> direction of simulated lines.
>
> For kobjects needed by sysfs callbacks: we can leverage the fact that
> once created for a software node, struct device is accessible from that
> fwnode_handle. We don't need to dereference gpio_device.
>
> While at it: fix one line break and remove the untrue part about
> configfs callbacks using dev_get_drvdata() from a comment.
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - use get_dev_from_fwnode() instead of dereferencing fwnode directly
Still no.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists