[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZYRCz-FiG_w71qhB@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 15:51:11 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/22] i2c: acpi: Modify i2c_acpi_get_irq() to use
resource
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 04:54:16PM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:
> The i2c_acpi_irq_context structure provides redundant information that
> can be provided with struct resource.
>
> Refactor i2c_acpi_get_irq() to use struct resource instead of struct
> i2c_acpi_irq_context.
Suggested-by?
...
> static int i2c_acpi_add_irq_resource(struct acpi_resource *ares, void *data)
> {
> - struct i2c_acpi_irq_context *irq_ctx = data;
> - struct resource r;
> + struct resource *r = data;
> - if (irq_ctx->irq > 0)
> + if (r->start > 0)
> return 1;
Checking flags is more robust.
if (r->flags)
return 1;
> - if (!acpi_dev_resource_interrupt(ares, 0, &r))
> + if (!acpi_dev_resource_interrupt(ares, 0, r))
> return 1;
>
> - irq_ctx->irq = i2c_dev_irq_from_resources(&r, 1);
> - irq_ctx->wake_capable = r.flags & IORESOURCE_IRQ_WAKECAPABLE;
> + i2c_dev_irq_from_resources(r, 1);
>
> return 1; /* No need to add resource to the list */
> }
...
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(r))
> + return -EINVAL;
Hmm... Do we expect this to be an error pointer in some cases?
...
> + ret = acpi_dev_get_gpio_irq_resource(adev, NULL, 0, r);
> + if (!ret)
> + return r->start;
>
> - return irq_ctx.irq;
> + return ret;
What's wrong with the standard pattern?
if (ret)
return ret;
...
return ...;
...
> + struct resource r = {0};
'0' is redundant.
...
> + irq = i2c_acpi_get_irq(client, &r);
> + if (irq > 0 && r.flags & IORESOURCE_IRQ_WAKECAPABLE)
Why checking just flags is not enough?
> client->flags |= I2C_CLIENT_WAKE;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists