[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZXswRCsT0OYwHe3N@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 18:41:40 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
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 Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:14:41AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> 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:
...
> > > > +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.
Yep, the DEFINE_MUTEX() / DEFINE_SPINLOCK() / etc looks better naturally
than above.
> And I still haven't received the email you quote there.
:-( I'm not sure we will get it, it most likely that I removed it already
and it has disappeared due to problems with email server...
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists