在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This patch switch device node to fwnode in dwapb_port_property, >> so as to apply a unified data structure for DT and ACPI. >> >> This change also needs to be done in intel_quark_i2c_gpio driver, >> since it depends on gpio-dwapb driver. >> >> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Yes, something like this. > Though I have questions: > - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? > What prevents us to move to device property API directly? Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. If there is any other more way to traverse child nodes, let me know. Thank you. > >> - gpio->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio, >> - &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); >> + gpio->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, ngpio, >> + &irq_generic_chip_ops, gpio); > > Are they equivalent? Yes, they are equivalent. > >> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_add_port(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, >> } >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO >> - port->gc.of_node = pp->node; >> + port->gc.of_node = to_of_node(pp->fwnode); > > If fwnode is not OF one? > Perhaps, something like ... = is_of_node() ? to_of_node() : NULL; > The way you suggested is more resonable, I will fixed it in next version. > >> - node = dev->of_node; >> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? > Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. >> >> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >> if (nports == 0) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. I am not very clear here. > >> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "reg", &pp->idx) || >> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", &pp->idx) || > > device_property_*() ? > >> pp->idx >= DWAPB_MAX_PORTS) { >> dev_err(dev, "missing/invalid port index for %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > > If it's not OF? This is checked above, and patch2 will remove it. > >> - if (of_property_read_u32(port_np, "snps,nr-gpios", >> + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "snps,nr-gpios", > > Ditto. > >> &pp->ngpio)) { >> dev_info(dev, "failed to get number of gpios for %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); > > Ditto. > >> if (pp->idx == 0 && >> - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) { >> - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0); >> + of_property_read_bool(to_of_node(fwnode), >> + "interrupt-controller")) { > > device_property_*() ? > >> + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0); >> if (!pp->irq) { >> dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n", >> - port_np->full_name); >> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name); >> } >> } >> >> pp->irq_shared = false; >> pp->gpio_base = -1; >> - pp->name = port_np->full_name; >> + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name; >> } >> >> return pdata; > > -- 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