On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:20 PM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 10:36:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > + bit = off * 2 + (off > 5 ? 4 : 0); > > > > Right, but can you use >= 6 here which immediately follows to the next > > question, i.e. why not use bank in this conditional? > > The ADP5585_BANK() macro is meant to be used with ADP5585_BIT(), for a > set of registers with the same layout. Here the layout is different, the > registers contain multi-bit fields. I can't use ADP5585_BIT(), so I'd > rather not use ADP5585_BANK() either. I have decided to use > 5 instead > of >= 6 to match the R5 field name in the comment above: > > /* > * The bias configuration fields are 2 bits wide and laid down in > * consecutive registers ADP5585_RPULL_CONFIG_*, with a hole of 4 bits > * after R5. > */ First of all, the 5 sounds misleading as one needs to think about "how many are exactly per the register" and the answer AFAIU is 6. >= 6 shows this. Second, I haven't mentioned _BANK(), what I meant is something to unsigned int bank = ... >= 6 ? : ; ... > > > + struct adp5585_dev *adp5585 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent); > > > > (see below) > > > > > + struct adp5585_gpio_dev *adp5585_gpio; > > > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > > > struct adp5585_dev *adp5585 = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent); > > I prefer keeping the current ordering, with long lines first, I think > that's more readable. Does the compiler optimise these two? > > > + struct gpio_chip *gc; > > > + int ret; ... > > > + device_set_of_node_from_dev(dev, dev->parent); > > > > Why not device_set_node()? > > Because device_set_of_node_from_dev() is meant for this exact use case, > where the same node is used for multiple devices. It also puts any > previous dev->of_node, ensuring proper refcounting when devices are > unbound and rebound, without being deleted. When will the refcount be dropped (in case of removal of this device)? Or you mean it shouldn't? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
