Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from struct gpio_desc

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:12 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:59:26PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:27 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:54:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 01:42:50PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > +static struct supinfo supinfo;
> > > > >
> > > > > Why supinfo should be a struct to begin with? Seems to me as an unneeded
> > > > > complication.
> > >
> > > I think we should keep it as a struct but defined the following way:
> > >
> > > struct {
> > >     spinlock_t lock;
> > >     struct rb_root tree;
> > > } supinfo;
> >
> > That is what I meant be merging the struct definition with the variable
> > definition.  Or is there some other way to completely do away with the
> > struct that I'm missing?
>
> Look at the top of gpiolib.c:
>
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_lookup_lock);
> static LIST_HEAD(gpio_lookup_list);
>
> In the similar way you can simply do
>
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(gpio_sup_lock);
> static struct rb_root gpio_sup_tree;
>

The fact that this has been like this, doesn't mean it's the only
right way. IMO putting these into the same structure makes logical
sense.

Bart

> > > > Yeah, that is a hangover from an earlier iteration where supinfo was
> > > > contained in other object rather than being a global.
> > > > Could merge the struct definition into the variable now.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
>