Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] mfd: lpc_sch: Add support for Intel Quark X1000

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 10:22 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > Intel Quark X1000 SoC supports IRQ based GPIO. This patch will
> > enable MFD support for Quark X1000 and provide IRQ resources
> > to Quark X1000 GPIO device driver.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chang Rebecca Swee Fun <rebecca.swee.fun.chang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Chang Rebecca Swee Fun <rebecca.swee.fun.chang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

See my answers below.

> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c b/drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c
> > index c4eb359..6145a4c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c
> > @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@
> >  #define GPIO_IO_SIZE	64
> >  #define GPIO_IO_SIZE_CENTERTON	128
> >  
> > +/* Intel Quark X1000 GPIO IRQ Number */
> > +#define GPIO_IRQ_QUARK_X1000	9
> > +
> >  #define WDTBASE		0x84
> >  #define WDT_IO_SIZE	64
> >  
> > @@ -44,28 +47,37 @@ enum sch_chipsets {
> >  	LPC_SCH = 0,		/* Intel Poulsbo SCH */
> >  	LPC_ITC,		/* Intel Tunnel Creek */
> >  	LPC_CENTERTON,		/* Intel Centerton */
> > +	LPC_QUARK_X1000,	/* Intel Quark X1000 */
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct lpc_sch_info {
> >  	unsigned int io_size_smbus;
> >  	unsigned int io_size_gpio;
> >  	unsigned int io_size_wdt;
> > +	int irq_gpio;
> >  };
> >  
> >  static struct lpc_sch_info sch_chipset_info[] = {
> >  	[LPC_SCH] = {
> >  		.io_size_smbus = SMBUS_IO_SIZE,
> >  		.io_size_gpio = GPIO_IO_SIZE,
> > +		.irq_gpio = -1,
> >  	},
> >  	[LPC_ITC] = {
> >  		.io_size_smbus = SMBUS_IO_SIZE,
> >  		.io_size_gpio = GPIO_IO_SIZE,
> >  		.io_size_wdt = WDT_IO_SIZE,
> > +		.irq_gpio = -1,
> >  	},
> >  	[LPC_CENTERTON] = {
> >  		.io_size_smbus = SMBUS_IO_SIZE,
> >  		.io_size_gpio = GPIO_IO_SIZE_CENTERTON,
> >  		.io_size_wdt = WDT_IO_SIZE,
> > +		.irq_gpio = -1,
> > +	},
> > +	[LPC_QUARK_X1000] = {
> > +		.io_size_gpio = GPIO_IO_SIZE,
> > +		.irq_gpio = GPIO_IRQ_QUARK_X1000,
> >  	},
> >  };
> >  
> > @@ -73,6 +85,7 @@ static const struct pci_device_id lpc_sch_ids[] = {
> >  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_SCH_LPC), LPC_SCH },
> >  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_ITC_LPC), LPC_ITC },
> >  	{ PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_CENTERTON_ILB), LPC_CENTERTON },
> > +	{ PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_QUARK_X1000_ILB), LPC_QUARK_X1000 },
> >  	{ 0, }
> >  };
> >  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, lpc_sch_ids);
> > @@ -106,14 +119,26 @@ static int lpc_sch_get_io(struct pci_dev *pdev, int where, const char *name,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int lpc_sch_get_irq(struct resource *res, int irq)
> > +{
> > +	if (irq < 0)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	res->start = irq;
> > +	res->end = irq;
> > +	res->flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> Why does this need to be a separate function?
> 
> I fear that the code will become unnecessarily fragmented, just for the
> sake of it.

I could do this as a condition branch.

> 
> >  static int lpc_sch_populate_cell(struct pci_dev *pdev, int where,
> > -				 const char *name, int size, int id,
> > -				 struct mfd_cell *cell)
> > +				 const char *name, int size, int irq,
> > +				 int id, struct mfd_cell *cell)
> >  {
> >  	struct resource *res;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > -	res = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	res = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, 2, sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!res)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > @@ -129,6 +154,10 @@ static int lpc_sch_populate_cell(struct pci_dev *pdev, int where,
> >  	cell->ignore_resource_conflicts = true;
> >  	cell->id = id;
> >  
> > +	ret = lpc_sch_get_irq(++res, irq);
> > +	if (!ret)
> > +		cell->num_resources++;
> 
> Once again, you're masking errors.  If it's not an error, don't return
> one.  If it is, filter it back and fail the bind.

I have to know if there is such resource or not. Taking into account you
prefer to see lpc_sch_get_irq embedded in here I just can do as a
condition branch and there will be no more question I hope.

> 
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -141,19 +170,19 @@ static int lpc_sch_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	ret = lpc_sch_populate_cell(dev, SMBASE, "isch_smbus",
> > -				    info->io_size_smbus,
> > +				    info->io_size_smbus, -1,
> >  				    id->device, &lpc_sch_cells[cells]);
> >  	if (!ret)
> >  		cells++;
> >  
> >  	ret = lpc_sch_populate_cell(dev, GPIOBASE, "sch_gpio",
> > -				    info->io_size_gpio,
> > +				    info->io_size_gpio, info->irq_gpio,
> >  				    id->device, &lpc_sch_cells[cells]);
> >  	if (!ret)
> >  		cells++;
> >  
> >  	ret = lpc_sch_populate_cell(dev, WDTBASE, "ie6xx_wdt",
> > -				    info->io_size_wdt,
> > +				    info->io_size_wdt, -1,
> >  				    id->device, &lpc_sch_cells[cells]);
> >  	if (!ret)
> >  		cells++;


-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/