Message ID | 20221031-gpiolib-swnode-v2-0-81f55af5fa0e@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add support for software nodes to gpiolib | expand |
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:26:45PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > This series attempts to add support for software nodes to gpiolib, using > software node references. This allows us to convert more drivers to the > generic device properties and drop support for custom platform data. > > To describe a GPIO via software nodes we can create the following data > items: > > /* Node representing the GPIO controller/GPIO bank */ > static const struct software_node gpio_bank_b_node = { > .name = "B", > }; > > /* > * Properties that will be assigned to a software node assigned to > * the device that used platform data. > */ > static const struct property_entry simone_key_enter_props[] = { > PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("linux,code", KEY_ENTER), > PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("label", "enter"), > PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF("gpios", &gpio_bank_b_node, 123, GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW), > { } > }; > > The code in gpiolib handling software nodes uses the name in the > software node representing GPIO controller to locate the actual instance > of GPIO controller. Thank for an update! I have almost nothing serious except two nit-picks I think we can address: - dropping const qualifier for no (?) reason - having a superfluous check and extra dev_dbg() If you are are going to address them, feel free to add my Rb tag to the patches 5 & 6.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:29:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:26:45PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > This series attempts to add support for software nodes to gpiolib, using > > software node references. This allows us to convert more drivers to the > > generic device properties and drop support for custom platform data. > > > > To describe a GPIO via software nodes we can create the following data > > items: > > > > /* Node representing the GPIO controller/GPIO bank */ > > static const struct software_node gpio_bank_b_node = { > > .name = "B", > > }; > > > > /* > > * Properties that will be assigned to a software node assigned to > > * the device that used platform data. > > */ > > static const struct property_entry simone_key_enter_props[] = { > > PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("linux,code", KEY_ENTER), > > PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("label", "enter"), > > PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF("gpios", &gpio_bank_b_node, 123, GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW), > > { } > > }; > > > > The code in gpiolib handling software nodes uses the name in the > > software node representing GPIO controller to locate the actual instance > > of GPIO controller. > > Thank for an update! > > I have almost nothing serious except two nit-picks I think we can address: > - dropping const qualifier for no (?) reason > - having a superfluous check and extra dev_dbg() > > If you are are going to address them, feel free to add my Rb tag to > the patches 5 & 6. Thank you for the reviews. I addressed most of your comments, but because I still left the check you were concerned about in I'd like an explicit reviewed-by on the v3 if you OK giving it. Thank you.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 11:32:31AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:29:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:26:45PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: ... > > Thank for an update! > > > > I have almost nothing serious except two nit-picks I think we can address: > > - dropping const qualifier for no (?) reason > > - having a superfluous check and extra dev_dbg() > > > > If you are are going to address them, feel free to add my Rb tag to > > the patches 5 & 6. > > Thank you for the reviews. I addressed most of your comments, but > because I still left the check you were concerned about in I'd like an > explicit reviewed-by on the v3 if you OK giving it. I gave for patch 6 and for patch 5 I still think we can get rid of the check.