On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:13:18AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> On 21. 6. 2. 오전 5:00, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > Prepare for supporting SM5504 in the extcon-sm5502 driver by replacing
> > enum sm5504_types with a struct sm5504_type that stores the chip-specific
> > definitions. This struct can then be defined separately for SM5504
> > without having to add if (type == TYPE_SM5504) everywhere in the code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3: New patch to simplify diff on next patch
> > ---
> > drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.h | 4 ---
> > 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c
> > index 9f40bb9f1f81..951f6ca4c479 100644
> > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c
> > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c
> > @@ -40,17 +40,13 @@ struct sm5502_muic_info {
> > struct i2c_client *i2c;
> > struct regmap *regmap;
> > + const struct sm5502_type *type;
> > struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data;
> > - struct muic_irq *muic_irqs;
> > - unsigned int num_muic_irqs;
> > int irq;
> > bool irq_attach;
> > bool irq_detach;
> > struct work_struct irq_work;
> > - struct reg_data *reg_data;
> > - unsigned int num_reg_data;
> > -
> > struct mutex mutex;
> > /*
> > @@ -62,6 +58,17 @@ struct sm5502_muic_info {
> > struct delayed_work wq_detcable;
> > };
> > +struct sm5502_type {
> > + struct muic_irq *muic_irqs;
> > + unsigned int num_muic_irqs;
> > + const struct regmap_irq_chip *irq_chip;
> > +
> > + struct reg_data *reg_data;
> > + unsigned int num_reg_data;
> > +
> > + int (*parse_irq)(struct sm5502_muic_info *info, int irq_type);
> > +};
> > +
> > /* Default value of SM5502 register to bring up MUIC device. */
> > static struct reg_data sm5502_reg_data[] = {
> > {
> > @@ -502,11 +509,11 @@ static irqreturn_t sm5502_muic_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
> > struct sm5502_muic_info *info = data;
> > int i, irq_type = -1, ret;
> > - for (i = 0; i < info->num_muic_irqs; i++)
> > - if (irq == info->muic_irqs[i].virq)
> > - irq_type = info->muic_irqs[i].irq;
> > + for (i = 0; i < info->type->num_muic_irqs; i++)
> > + if (irq == info->type->muic_irqs[i].virq)
> > + irq_type = info->type->muic_irqs[i].irq;
> > - ret = sm5502_parse_irq(info, irq_type);
> > + ret = info->type->parse_irq(info, irq_type);
>
> Looks good to me. But there is only one comment.
> Need to check the 'parse_irq' as following:
>
> If you agree this suggestion, I'll apply with following changes by myself:
>
> if (!info->type->parse_irq) {
> dev_err(info->dev, "failed to handle irq due to parse_irq\n",
> return IRQ_NONE;
> }
>
>
This condition should be impossible, since .parse_irq is set for both
SM5502 and SM5504:
static const struct sm5502_type sm5502_data = {
/* ... */
.parse_irq = sm5502_parse_irq,
};
static const struct sm5502_type sm5504_data = {
/* ... */
.parse_irq = sm5504_parse_irq,
};
Which failure case are you trying to handle with that if statement?
Thanks!
Stephan
