[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zw5QzP-5hnHW--F-@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:23:56 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/8] platform/chrome: Introduce device tree hardware
prober
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 02:32:54PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 7:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 12:56:20PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 06:29:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 03:34:26PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
...
> > > > > > + .cfg = &chromeos_i2c_probe_simple_trackpad_cfg,
> > > > >
> > > > > .cfg = DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG(trackpad, i2c_of_probe_simple_ops),
> > > > >
> > > > > Or even
> > > > >
> > > > > #define DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG_SIMPLE(_type_) \
> > > > > DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG(type, &i2c_of_probe_simple_ops)
> > >
> > > I'm not inclined on using compound literals here. "simple X cfg" will
> > > likely get shared between multiple |chromeos_i2c_probe_data| entries,
> > > and AFAIK the toolchain can't merge them. So we would end up with one
> > > compound literal per entry, even if their contents are the same.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow, you are using compound literal _already_.
> > How does my proposal change that?
>
> I'm using it where it makes sense, i.e. where the embedded variable
> is not going to be shared with other instances.
>
> For the dumb probers, there's only going to be one instance per "type".
>
> For the simple probers, the config part is still one instance per "type",
> but the parameters are board and component specific. There will be
> multiple instances. Hence the config part can be shared, while the
> parameters likely won't be.
>
> > > > With that also looking at the above
> > > >
> > > > #define DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG_NONE(_type_) \
> > > > DEFINE_I2C_OF_PROBE_CFG(type, NULL)
> > >
> > > For the "dumb" case it makes sense though, since it would be one instance
> > > per type. But we could go further and just wrap the whole
> > > |chromeos_i2c_probe_data| declaration.
> >
> > Maybe it's too far from now...
>
> This is what I have:
>
> #define DEFINE_CHROMEOS_I2C_PROBE_DATA_DUMB(_type)
> \
> static const struct chromeos_i2c_probe_data
> chromeos_i2c_probe_dumb_ ## _type = { \
> .cfg = &(const struct i2c_of_probe_cfg) {
But the below is static initializer, why do you need a compound literal here?
> \
> .type = #_type,
> \
> },
> \
> };
>
> DEFINE_CHROMEOS_I2C_PROBE_DATA_DUMB(touchscreen);
s/dumb/simple/g
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists