Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] gpio-f7188x: Add GPIO support for Nuvoton NCT6116

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 8/24/22 16:17, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:54:28 +0200
> schrieb Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>> Hi Henning,
>>
>> On 8/24/22 15:50, Henning Schild wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:10:55 +0200
>>> schrieb simon.guinot@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>   
>>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 04:54:59PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:  
>>>>> Am Tue, 23 Aug 2022 17:47:38 +0300
>>>>> schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:    
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this new version. It is looking good to me.
>>>>  
>>>>>     
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:23:40PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>> Add GPIO support for Nuvoton NCT6116 chip. Nuvoton SuperIO
>>>>>>> chips are very similar to the ones from Fintek. In other
>>>>>>> subsystems they also share drivers and are called a family of
>>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the GPIO subsystem the only difference is that the direction
>>>>>>> bit is reversed and that there is only one data bit per pin. On
>>>>>>> the SuperIO level the logical device is another one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a chip level we do not have a manufacturer ID to check and
>>>>>>> also no revision.      
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> - * GPIO driver for Fintek Super-I/O F71869, F71869A, F71882,
>>>>>>> F71889 and F81866
>>>>>>> + * GPIO driver for Fintek and Nuvoton Super-I/O chips      
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure it's good idea to drop it from here. It means reader
>>>>>> has to get this info in a hard way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...    
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us see what others say. I wanted to keep this in line with
>>>>> what Kconfig says and the oneliner in the Kconfig was getting
>>>>> pretty longish. Hence i decided to shorten that. Other drivers
>>>>> also seem to not list all the possible chips in many places, it
>>>>> is all maint effort when a new chips is added and the list is in
>>>>> like 5 places.    
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you that we can drop this line. It was already
>>>> incomplete and the information is quite readable a few lines below
>>>> in both the define list and the chip enumeration.
>>>>  
>>>>>     
>>>>>>> +#define gpio_dir_invert(type)	((type) == nct6116d)
>>>>>>> +#define gpio_data_single(type)	((type) == nct6116d)
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's prevents us to add a proper prefix to these? I don't like
>>>>>> the idea of them having "gpio" prefix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> +		pr_info(DRVNAME ": Unsupported device
>>>>>>> 0x%04x\n", devid);
>>>>>>> +			pr_debug(DRVNAME ": Not a Fintek
>>>>>>> device at 0x%08x\n", addr);
>>>>>>> +	pr_info(DRVNAME ": Found %s at %#x\n",
>>>>>>> +		pr_info(DRVNAME ":   revision %d\n",      
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we, please, utilize pr_fmt()?
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> +			(int)superio_inb(addr,
>>>>>>> SIO_FINTEK_DEVREV));      
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explicit casting in printf() means wrong specifier in 99% of
>>>>>> cases.   
>>>>>
>>>>> For all the other comments i will wait for a second opinion. I
>>>>> specifically did not change existing code for more than the
>>>>> functional changes needed. And a bit of checkpatch.pl fixing.
>>>>> Beautification could be done on the way but would only cause
>>>>> inconsistency. That driver is what it is, if someone wants to
>>>>> overhaul the style ... that should be another patch. One likely
>>>>> not coming from me.    
>>>>
>>>> About the int cast, I think you can drop it while you are updating
>>>> this line. It is unneeded.  
>>>
>>> Ok two voices for doing that one fix along the way. I will send a v5
>>> and hope nobody insists on me fixing the other findings in code i
>>> never wrote.  
>>
>> You did not write it, but you are using it to do hw-enablement for
>> your company's products. So being asked to also some touch-ups
>> left and right while you are at it really is not unexpected IMHO.
> 
> Sure thing. Dropping a few characters from a line i touch anyhow is
> easy enough. But i.e a refactoring to pr_fmt would feel like asking too
> much in my book. That feels like work of the author or maintainer.

Right, but that assumes that the original author / maintainer is still
around and actively contributing which unfortunately is not always
the case.

Regards,

Hans