Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] gpio: syscon: Add support for a custom get operation

[Paul Kocialkowski]

Hi,

On Thu 03 Oct 19, 16:05, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> czw., 3 paÅ 2019 o 13:26 Paul Kocialkowski
> <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu 03 Oct 19, 10:24, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > pt., 27 wrz 2019 o 12:04 Paul Kocialkowski
> > > <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> > > >
> > > > Some drivers might need a custom get operation to match custom
> > > > behavior implemented in the set operation.
> > > >
> > > > Add plumbing for supporting that.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c | 7 ++++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c
> > > > index 31f332074d7d..05c537ed73f1 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-syscon.c
> > > > @@ -43,8 +43,9 @@ struct syscon_gpio_data {
> > > >         unsigned int    bit_count;
> > > >         unsigned int    dat_bit_offset;
> > > >         unsigned int    dir_bit_offset;
> > > > -       void            (*set)(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> > > > -                              unsigned offset, int value);
> > > > +       int             (*get)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset);
> > > > +       void            (*set)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset,
> > > > +                              int value);
> > >
> > > Why did you change this line? Doesn't seem necessary and pollutes the history.
> >
> > This is for consistency since both the "chip" and "offset" arguments can fit
> > in a single line. Since I want the "get" addition to fit in a single line,
> > bringing back "offset" on the previous line of "set" makes things consistent.
> > There's probably no particular reason for the split in the first place.
> >
> > Do you think it needs a separate cosmetic commit only for that?
> > I'd rather add a note in the commit message and keep the change as-is.
> >
> 
> The line is still broken - just in a different place. I'd prefer to
> leave it as it is frankly, there's nothing wrong with it.

The point is rather that this introduces inconsistency between the two lines.
It's definitely not a major issue, but I still believe it is a coding style
issue. It surely doesn't hurt to fix it.

Cheers,

Paul

> Bart
> 
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > > Bart
> > >
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > >  struct syscon_gpio_priv {
> > > > @@ -252,7 +253,7 @@ static int syscon_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >         priv->chip.label = dev_name(dev);
> > > >         priv->chip.base = -1;
> > > >         priv->chip.ngpio = priv->data->bit_count;
> > > > -       priv->chip.get = syscon_gpio_get;
> > > > +       priv->chip.get = priv->data->get ? : syscon_gpio_get;
> > > >         if (priv->data->flags & GPIO_SYSCON_FEAT_IN)
> > > >                 priv->chip.direction_input = syscon_gpio_dir_in;
> > > >         if (priv->data->flags & GPIO_SYSCON_FEAT_OUT) {
> > > > --
> > > > 2.23.0
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
> > Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
> > https://bootlin.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature