On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 8/24/22 16:17, Henning Schild wrote: > > Am Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:54:28 +0200 > > schrieb Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > >> Hi Henning, > >> > >> On 8/24/22 15:50, Henning Schild wrote: > >>> Am Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:10:55 +0200 > >>> schrieb simon.guinot@xxxxxxxxxxxx: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 04:54:59PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > >>>>> Am Tue, 23 Aug 2022 17:47:38 +0300 > >>>>> schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Andy, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for this new version. It is looking good to me. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:23:40PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Add GPIO support for Nuvoton NCT6116 chip. Nuvoton SuperIO > >>>>>>> chips are very similar to the ones from Fintek. In other > >>>>>>> subsystems they also share drivers and are called a family of > >>>>>>> drivers. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For the GPIO subsystem the only difference is that the direction > >>>>>>> bit is reversed and that there is only one data bit per pin. On > >>>>>>> the SuperIO level the logical device is another one. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On a chip level we do not have a manufacturer ID to check and > >>>>>>> also no revision. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> - * GPIO driver for Fintek Super-I/O F71869, F71869A, F71882, > >>>>>>> F71889 and F81866 > >>>>>>> + * GPIO driver for Fintek and Nuvoton Super-I/O chips > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure it's good idea to drop it from here. It means reader > >>>>>> has to get this info in a hard way. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ... > >>>>> > >>>>> Let us see what others say. I wanted to keep this in line with > >>>>> what Kconfig says and the oneliner in the Kconfig was getting > >>>>> pretty longish. Hence i decided to shorten that. Other drivers > >>>>> also seem to not list all the possible chips in many places, it > >>>>> is all maint effort when a new chips is added and the list is in > >>>>> like 5 places. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with you that we can drop this line. It was already > >>>> incomplete and the information is quite readable a few lines below > >>>> in both the define list and the chip enumeration. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> +#define gpio_dir_invert(type) ((type) == nct6116d) > >>>>>>> +#define gpio_data_single(type) ((type) == nct6116d) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What's prevents us to add a proper prefix to these? I don't like > >>>>>> the idea of them having "gpio" prefix. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> + pr_info(DRVNAME ": Unsupported device > >>>>>>> 0x%04x\n", devid); > >>>>>>> + pr_debug(DRVNAME ": Not a Fintek > >>>>>>> device at 0x%08x\n", addr); > >>>>>>> + pr_info(DRVNAME ": Found %s at %#x\n", > >>>>>>> + pr_info(DRVNAME ": revision %d\n", > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can we, please, utilize pr_fmt()? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> + (int)superio_inb(addr, > >>>>>>> SIO_FINTEK_DEVREV)); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Explicit casting in printf() means wrong specifier in 99% of > >>>>>> cases. > >>>>> > >>>>> For all the other comments i will wait for a second opinion. I > >>>>> specifically did not change existing code for more than the > >>>>> functional changes needed. And a bit of checkpatch.pl fixing. > >>>>> Beautification could be done on the way but would only cause > >>>>> inconsistency. That driver is what it is, if someone wants to > >>>>> overhaul the style ... that should be another patch. One likely > >>>>> not coming from me. > >>>> > >>>> About the int cast, I think you can drop it while you are updating > >>>> this line. It is unneeded. > >>> > >>> Ok two voices for doing that one fix along the way. I will send a v5 > >>> and hope nobody insists on me fixing the other findings in code i > >>> never wrote. > >> > >> You did not write it, but you are using it to do hw-enablement for > >> your company's products. So being asked to also some touch-ups > >> left and right while you are at it really is not unexpected IMHO. > > > > Sure thing. Dropping a few characters from a line i touch anyhow is > > easy enough. But i.e a refactoring to pr_fmt would feel like asking too > > much in my book. That feels like work of the author or maintainer. > > Right, but that assumes that the original author / maintainer is still > around and actively contributing which unfortunately is not always > the case. Actually the original author is not active but he is still keeping an eye on the driver :) I still review and test the patches I catch on the MLs. And I am ready to do some maintenance work if needed. Henning, I think you could have done the pr_fmt conversion. It is not a big deal and it would have been nice. But indeed, you don't have to... Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
