Hi,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:49:57AM -0700, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Markus Pargmann <mpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> There is no reason to find out chip and hwnum to use to request a gpio
> >> and get another gpio descriptor. We already have the descriptor we want
> >> to use so we can directly use it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Pargmann <mpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 17 ++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> >> index 79a0b41ce57b..872fdd3617c1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> >> @@ -2189,25 +2189,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__gpiod_get_index_optional);
> >> int gpiod_hog(struct gpio_desc *desc, const char *name,
> >> unsigned long lflags, enum gpiod_flags dflags)
> >> {
> >> - struct gpio_chip *chip;
> >> - struct gpio_desc *local_desc;
> >> - int hwnum;
> >> int status;
> >>
> >> - chip = gpiod_to_chip(desc);
> >> - hwnum = gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc);
> >> -
> >> - local_desc = gpiochip_request_own_desc(chip, hwnum, name);
> >> - if (IS_ERR(local_desc)) {
> >> + status = __gpiod_request(desc, name);
> >> + if (status) {
> >> pr_err("requesting hog GPIO %s (chip %s, offset %d) failed\n",
> >> - name, chip->label, hwnum);
> >> - return PTR_ERR(local_desc);
> >> + name, gpiod_to_chip(desc)->label,
> >> + gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc));
> >> + return status;
> >> }
> >>
> >> status = gpiod_configure_flags(desc, name, lflags, dflags);
> >> if (status < 0) {
> >> pr_err("setup of hog GPIO %s (chip %s, offset %d) failed\n",
> >> - name, chip->label, hwnum);
> >> + name, gpiod_to_chip(desc)->label, gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc));
> >> gpiochip_free_own_desc(desc);
> >
> > Mmm I should have reviewed this patch earlier, but what bothers me a
> > bit is that it breaks the symetry that we had by calling
> > request_own_desc() and free_own_desc() in the failing case (as well as
> > in gpiochip_free_hogs). And in the end you still need to call
> > gpiod_to_chip() so I am not sure what the benefit is.
> >
> > Sure, the code is less verbose, but at the same time it has become
> > slightly harder to understand. Semantically speaking
> > "request_own_desc()" is exactly the action we want to convey.
> > __gpiod_request() is more ambiguous.
> >
> > Note that this is not a reject, I just wanted to stress that "less
> > code" is not necessarily the same as "easier to read".
>
> OK I dropped this patch for now.
>
> Markus can you live without this patch for 2/3 and 3/3?
Yes, that's fine. I will remove it and rebase the others.
Best Regards,
Markus
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
