2017-09-28 10:04 GMT+02:00 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 09/27/2017 09:23 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>> return ret;
>>>> - }
>>>> - iio_evgen->chip.name = iio_evgen_name;
>>>> - iio_evgen->chip.irq_mask = &iio_dummy_event_irqmask;
>>>> - iio_evgen->chip.irq_unmask = &iio_dummy_event_irqunmask;
>>>> - for (i = 0; i < IIO_EVENTGEN_NO; i++) {
>>>> - irq_set_chip(iio_evgen->base + i, &iio_evgen->chip);
>>>> - irq_set_handler(iio_evgen->base + i, &handle_simple_irq);
>>>> - irq_modify_status(iio_evgen->base + i,
>>>> - IRQ_NOREQUEST | IRQ_NOAUTOEN,
>>>> - IRQ_NOPROBE);
>>>> - }
>>>> - init_irq_work(&iio_evgen->handler.work, iio_dummy_work_handler);
>>>> +
>>>> + iio_evgen->base = irq_sim_irqnum(&iio_evgen->irq_sim, 0);
>>> I saw you introduced irq_sim_baseirq(), to get rid of ->base. But as far as
>>> I can see the only remaining places where we need the base is to do the
>>> reverse lookup from IRQ to index. It would be nice if the irq_sim had a
>>> function for that, then we wouldn't have to know about the base at all.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand. Irq sim doesn't know anything about iio
>> data structures, so how would such a reverse lookup work in this case?
>
> Reverse lookup in the sense of translating IRQ number to offset. All we ever
> do with the base in the IIO code is `irq - base` to get the offset. I'd hide
> that calculation in a helper in the irq_sim code. This nicely splits
> functionality and implementation, the IIO code doesn't have to know how to
> get offset from the IRQ.
I see. Sounds like a good improvement for 4.16. In the meantime, I'll
send v2 with the missing kfree() added.
Thanks,
Bartosz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
