Re: [RFC PATCH] RFC: drivers: gpio: helper for generic pin IRQ handling

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:19 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:14 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> <info@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Many gpio drivers already use gpiolib's builtin irqchip handling
> > (CONFIG_GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP), but still has some boilerplate for retrieving
> > the actual Linux IRQ number and calling into the generic handler.
> > That boilerplate can be reduced by moving that into a helper function.
> >
> > This is an RFC patch to outline how that could be done. Note: it's
> > completely untested yet.
> >
> > Several drivers still have their completely IRQ own implementation and
> > thus can't be converted yet. Some of them perhaps could be changed to
> > store their irq domain in the struct gpio, so the new helper could
> > also be used for those.
> >
> > Having all GPIO drivers doing their IRQ management entirely through the
> > GPIO subsystem (eg. never calling generic_handle_irq() and using the builtin
> > IRQ handling) would also allow a more direct (eg. callback-based) pin change
> > notification for GPIO consumers, that doesn't involve registering them as
> > generic IRQ handlers.
> >
> > Further reduction of boilerplate could be achieved by additional helpers
> > for common patterns like for_each_set_bit() loops on irq masks.
>
> Have you able to test them all?
> As the PCA953x case showed us this is not so simple, besides the name
> which sucks — we don't *raise* and IRQ we *handle* it.
>
> NAK.

To be on constructive side what I think can help here:
- split patch on per driver basis (and first patch is a simple
introduction of new API)
- rename function
- in each new per-driver patch explain what is the difference in behaviour
- test as many as you can and explain in a cover letter what has been
done and what are the expectations on the ones that you weren't able
to test.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko