Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: Add driver for Zynq GPIO controller

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Harini Katakam <harinik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add support for GPIO controller used by Xilinx Zynq.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harini Katakam <harinik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> v2 changes:
>  - convert to pm_runtime_force_(suspend|resume)
>  - add pm_runtime_set_active in probe()
>  - also (un)prepare clocks when they are dis-/enabled
>  - add some missing calls to pm_runtime_get()
>  - use pm_runtime_put() instead of sync variant
>  - remove gpio chip in driver remove()
>  - remove redundant type casts
>  - directly use IO helpers
>  - use BIT macro to set/clear bits
>  - migrate to GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP

This is a great improvement! Only small stuff remains.

> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>

This should be:
#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>

If that doesn't work ... why?

> +/**
> + * struct zynq_gpio - gpio device private data structure
> + * @chip:      instance of the gpio_chip
> + * @base_addr: base address of the GPIO device
> + * @irq:       irq associated with the controller
> + * @clk:       clock resource for this controller
> + */
> +struct zynq_gpio {
> +       struct gpio_chip chip;
> +       void __iomem *base_addr;
> +       int irq;

Why is irq kept around in this struct? It looks like it could just
be a local variable in probe()?

> +       struct clk *clk;
> +};

Apart from that this nitpicking the driver looks very nice.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html