On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:14:38PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.
Ok.
>
> > 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.
Right, I'll evaluate my options and come up with something.
> ...
>
> > > > + 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".
Ok, I'll change it.
> > > > + 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
Thanks.
Best regards,
Jonathan Neuschäfer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
