[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlY4X2P1VpF0aqjM@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 23:02:39 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Alvin Šipraga <alvin@...s.dk>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Emil Svendsen <emas@...g-olufsen.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] gpio: add AD24xx GPIO driver
Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:58:04PM +0200, Alvin Šipraga kirjoitti:
> From: Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>
>
> This driver adds GPIO function support for AD24xx A2B transceiver chips.
"Add GPIO..."
> When a GPIO is requested, the relevant pin is automatically muxed to
> GPIO mode. The device tree property gpio-reserved-ranges can be used to
> protect certain pins which are reserved for other functionality such as
> I2S/TDM data.
Why this doesn't use gpio-regmap?
..
> +config GPIO_AD24XX
> + tristate "Analog Devies Inc. AD24xx GPIO support"
> + depends on A2B_AD24XX_NODE
> + help
> + Say Y here to enable GPIO support for AD24xx A2B transceivers.
checkpatch probably complain about too short help text. You may extend it by
explaining how module will be called.
..
> +#include <linux/a2b/a2b.h>
> +#include <linux/a2b/ad24xx.h>
This seems to me not so generic as below...
+ bits.h
+ device.h
+ err.h
> +#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
+ mod_devicetable.h
> +#include <linux/module.h>
+ mutex.h
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
Please, can we avoid OF in a new code?
> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
..hence move that group here and put a blank line before.
..
> +struct ad24xx_gpio {
> + struct device *dev;
> + struct a2b_func *func;
> + struct a2b_node *node;
> + struct regmap *regmap;
> + int irqs[AD24XX_MAX_GPIOS];
> + struct gpio_chip gpio_chip;
If you move this to be the first member, you might get less code being
generated at compile time.
> + struct irq_chip irq_chip;
Should not be here, but static.
> + struct mutex mutex;
> + unsigned int irq_invert : AD24XX_MAX_GPIOS;
> + unsigned int irq_enable : AD24XX_MAX_GPIOS;
> +};
..
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(adg->dev,
> + "failed to update interrupt configuration: %d\n", ret);
Why and how is this useful?
..
> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(dev->of_node);
First of all it uses a wrong API (custom to IRQ core), second why do you need
this?
..
> + struct device_node *np;
> + np = of_irq_find_parent(dev->of_node);
> + if (!np)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + parent_domain = irq_find_host(np);
> + of_node_put(np);
> + if (!parent_domain)
> + return -ENOENT;
Why is this magic needed?
..
> + ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, gpio_chip, adg);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
return devm_gpiochip_add_data(...);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists