On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 2:14 PM Aidan MacDonald
<aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 6:29 PM Aidan MacDonald
> > <aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> + if ((val & reginfo->mask) == (input_muxvals[offset] << (ffs(reginfo->mask) - 1)))
> >> + return GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN;
> >
> >> + else
> >
> > Redundant.
> > Also applies for the other similar cases in your code. Note, this is
> > also redundant for 'continue' and 'break' in case of loops.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The "else"?
Yes.
> I'm missing the generalization.
>
> >> + return GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT;
...
> >> + pctl->chip.to_irq = axp192_gpio_to_irq;
> >
> > Why a custom method?
>
> The irq chip is part of the mfd device, not the gpio chip. There does
> not seem to be any default implementation for this case so I have to
> provide one. A similar example is gpio-wm8994.
>
> I did notice I'm doing something wrong by calling regmap_irq_get_virq()
> in the probe function, which creates an irq mapping; I think I should be
> doing that in the to_irq() callback like the other drivers do.
It may be done using different approaches, but this part should be
carefully reviewed by GPIO / pin control maintainers.
...
> Ah, sorry, I see that function is deprecated. The documentation points
> to doing this in the device tree instead. So if I understand correctly
> I should follow the example of pinctrl-thunderbay and add gpio-ranges:
>
> pinctrl0: gpio@0 {
> compatible = "x-powers,axp192-gpio";
> gpio-controller;
> #gpio-cells = <2>;
> gpio-ranges = <&pinctrl0 0 0 6>;
> };
>
> which means I'll have to update the gpio DT bindings. I'm guessing the
> callback you mentioned is add_pin_ranges() or of_gpio_ranges_fallback()
> but neither of those seem appropriate in this case. The DT node should
> be good enough.
Sounds good.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
