On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:58 PM Jonathan Neuschäfer
<j.neuschaefer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 01:24:18PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021, Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
...
> > > + ours = ((1UL << gpio->num_irqs) - 1) << gpio->first_irq_bit;
> >
> > BIT()
>
> I'll use it, but in this case, I think it doesn't simplify much the
> whole expression all that much.
It is still better to use in my opinion.
> Is there perhaps a macro that
> constructs a continuous bitmask of N bits, perhaps additionally
> left-shifted by M bits?
> Maybe somewhere in the bitmap_* API...
Maybe, I dunno since I haven't clearly got this code anyway, so up to
you to check and see what to do about it.
...
> > > + struct fwnode_handle *np;
> >
> > Either be fully OF, or don’t name ‘np' here. We usually use fwnode or
> > ‘child’ in this case.
>
> Ah, I thought "np" (= node pointer) was still appropriate because I'm
> dealing with firmware _nodes_. My intention was indeed to switch fully
> to the fwnode API.
Just a convention "de facto".
...
> > > + ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&gpio->gc,
> > > dev_name(pctrl->dev),
> > > + 0, bank->base, bank->length);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed to add pin range for
> > > GPIO bank %u\n", reg);
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> >
> > Please move it to the corresponding callback.
>
> What's the corresponding callback?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/gpio/driver.h#L400
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
