On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:00 PM Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 2020-05-28 13:45, schrieb Andy Shevchenko: > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:04 AM Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > More comments from me below. > > Thanks for the review. You are welcome! Thanks for doing this actually. (So, the not commented points I think you agreed with) ... > >> # Device drivers. Generally keep list sorted alphabetically > > > > Hmm... > > > >> +obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_REGMAP) += gpio-regmap.o > >> obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_GENERIC) += gpio-generic.o > > > > ...is it? > > That's because gpio-regmap.o seems not be a driver and more of a generic > thing (like gpio-generic.o) and gpio-generic.o has another rule two > lines > below and I don't want to put gpio-regmap.o in between. OK! ... > >> + if (gpio->reg_dir_out_base) { > >> + base = gpio_regmap_addr(gpio->reg_dir_out_base); > >> + invert = 0; > >> + } else if (gpio->reg_dir_in_base) { > >> + base = gpio_regmap_addr(gpio->reg_dir_in_base); > >> + invert = 1; > >> + } else { > > > >> + return GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN; > > > > Hmm... Doesn't it an erroneous case and we basically shouldn't be here? > > yeah, I'll return -EOPNOTSUPP. Better than just ignoring, right? Yes, that's what I meant. ... > >> + if (!!(val & mask) ^ invert) > >> + return GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT; > > > >> + else > > > > Redundant 'else'. > > IMHO, That looks really strange. like it has nothing to do with the > if statement. I'd like to keep that one. We have many drivers done like that, but it's minor, so, up to you and maintainers. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko