[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZXnX8jPHxRLW8lhi@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:12:34 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from
struct gpio_desc
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:59:26PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:27 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:54:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 01:42:50PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
...
> > > > > +static struct supinfo supinfo;
> > > >
> > > > Why supinfo should be a struct to begin with? Seems to me as an unneeded
> > > > complication.
> >
> > I think we should keep it as a struct but defined the following way:
> >
> > struct {
> > spinlock_t lock;
> > struct rb_root tree;
> > } supinfo;
>
> That is what I meant be merging the struct definition with the variable
> definition. Or is there some other way to completely do away with the
> struct that I'm missing?
Look at the top of gpiolib.c:
static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_lookup_lock);
static LIST_HEAD(gpio_lookup_list);
In the similar way you can simply do
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(gpio_sup_lock);
static struct rb_root gpio_sup_tree;
> > > Yeah, that is a hangover from an earlier iteration where supinfo was
> > > contained in other object rather than being a global.
> > > Could merge the struct definition into the variable now.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists