Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] gpio: add support for the sl28cpld GPIO controller

[Michael Walle]

Am 2020-06-05 15:15, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 02:42:53PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > Am 2020-06-05 14:00, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:14 AM Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > +       return devm_regmap_add_irq_chip_np(dev, dev_of_node(dev),
> > > > regmap,
> > >
> > > It seems regmap needs to be converted to use fwnode.
> >
> > Mhh, this _np functions was actually part of this series in the
> > beginning.
>
> Then, please, make them fwnode aware rather than OF centric.

ok

> > > > IRQF_ONESHOT, 0,
> > > > +                                          irq_chip, &gpio->irq_data);
>
> ...
>
> > > > +       dev_id = platform_get_device_id(pdev);
> > > > +       if (dev_id)
> > > > +               type = dev_id->driver_data;
> > >
> > > Oh, no. In new code we don't need this. We have facilities to provide
> > > platform data in a form of fwnode.
> >
> > Ok I'll look into that.
> >
> > But I already have a question, so there are of_property_read_xx(), 
> > which
> > seems to be the old functions, then there is device_property_read_xx() 
> > and
> > fwnode_property_read_xx(). What is the difference between the latter 
> > two?
>
> It's easy. device_*() requires struct device to be established for 
> this, so,
> operates only against devices, while the fwnode_*() operates on pure 
> data which
> might or might not be related to any devices. If you understand OF 
> examples
> better, consider device node vs. child of such node.

Ahh thanks, got it.

> ...
>
> > > > +       if (irq_support &&
> > >
> > > Why do you need this flag? Can't simple IRQ number be sufficient?
> >
> > I want to make sure, the is no misconfiguration. Eg. only GPIO
> > flavors which has irq_support set, have the additional interrupt
> > registers.
>
> In gpio-dwapb, for example, we simple check two things: a) hardware 
> limitation
> (if IRQ is assigned to a proper port) and b) if there is any IRQ comes 
> from DT,
> ACPI, etc.

I can't follow you here. irq_support is like your (a); or the
"pp->idx == 0" in your example.

> > > > +           device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev,
> > > > "interrupt-controller")) {
> > > > +               irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > > > +               if (irq < 0)
> > > > +                       return irq;
> > > > +
> > > > +               ret = sl28cpld_gpio_irq_init(&pdev->dev, gpio, regmap,
> > > > +                                            base, irq);
> > > > +               if (ret)
> > > > +                       return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +               config.irq_domain =
> > > > regmap_irq_get_domain(gpio->irq_data);
> > > > +       }
>
> ...
>
> > > > +       { .compatible = "kontron,sl28cpld-gpio",
> > > > +         .data = (void *)SL28CPLD_GPIO },
> > > > +       { .compatible = "kontron,sl28cpld-gpi",
> > > > +         .data = (void *)SL28CPLD_GPI },
> > > > +       { .compatible = "kontron,sl28cpld-gpo",
> > > > +         .data = (void *)SL28CPLD_GPO },
> > >
> > > All above can be twice less LOCs.
> >
> > They are longer than 80 chars. Or do I miss something?
>
> We have 100 :-)

oh come on, since 6 days *g*

> > > > +               .name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> > >
> > > This actually not good idea in long term. File name can change and break
> > > an ABI.
> >
> > Ahh an explanation, why this is bad. Ok makes sense, although to be 
> > fair,
> > .id_table should be used for the driver name matching. I'm not sure if
> > this is used somewhere else, though.
>
> I saw in my practice chain of renames for a driver. Now, if somebody
> somewhere would like to instantiate a platform driver by its name...
> Oops, ABI breakage.
>
> And of course using platform data for such device makes less sense.

i just removed the id_table from all drivers anyways.

-michael