[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZXsp8QjxsUMPlZIR@rigel>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 00:14:41 +0800
From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
brgl@...ev.pl, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from
struct gpio_desc
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:09:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:03:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:58:11PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Used to populate gpio_v2_line_info with cdev specific fields not contained
> > > + * in the struct gpio_desc.
> > > + * A line is determined to contain supplemental information by
> > > + * line_is_supplemental().
> > > + */
> > > +static struct {
> > > + /* a rbtree of the struct lines containing the supplemental info */
> > > + struct rb_root tree;
> > > + /* covers tree */
> > > + spinlock_t lock;
> > > +} supinfo;
>
> Hmm... If I read the kernel-doc script it should support anonymous structs
> and unions...
>
> ...
>
> > > +static void supinfo_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > + supinfo.tree = RB_ROOT;
> > > + spin_lock_init(&supinfo.lock);
> > > +}
> >
> > Can it be done statically?
> >
> > supinfo = {
> > .tree = RB_ROOT,
> > .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(supinfo.lock),
>
> I even checked the current tree, we have 32 users of this pattern in drivers/.
>
Ah, that is what you meant. Yeah sure can - the supinfo_init() is
another hangover from when I was trying to create the supinfo per chip,
but now it is a global a static initialiser makes sense.
And I still haven't received the email you quote there.
Cheers,
Kent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists