[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=X+_iYi0_RSakh6bzVYuNpiqUvjHTrL81n8h4dO+WZf9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:58:55 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/8] i2c: of-prober: Add GPIO support to simple helpers
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 12:35 AM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> +static void i2c_of_probe_simple_disable_gpio(struct device *dev, struct i2c_of_probe_simple_ctx *ctx)
> +{
> + if (!ctx->gpiod)
> + return;
> +
> + /* Ignore error if GPIO is not in output direction */
> + gpiod_set_value(ctx->gpiod, !ctx->opts->gpio_assert_to_enable);
I'm not sure I understand the comment. Does disable() ever get called
when set() wasn't called beforehand? How could it not be in output
direction?
> void i2c_of_probe_simple_cleanup(struct device *dev, void *data)
> {
> struct i2c_of_probe_simple_ctx *ctx = data;
>
> + /* GPIO operations here are no-ops if a component was found and enabled. */
Instead of the above, maybe:
GPIO operations here are no-ops if i2c_of_probe_simple_cleanup_early()
was called.
Just commenting nits, so:
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists