Hi,
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_GPIOLIB)
>> +static const char * const ftdi_ftx_gpio_names[] = {
>> + "CBUS0", "CBUS1", "CBUS2", "CBUS3"
>> +};
>> +#endif
>
> We want to keep the ifdeffery to a minimum, so move this inside the
> gpiolib ifdef below (and possibly even into the function where it is
> used).
>
> Also note that these names are shared with FT232R, but not with FT232H.
>
What naming do you suggest then?
My personal preference would be however to leave this name as is, because
this patch only adds support for the FT-X. Even if support for others can
be added relatively trivially after this, there is explicitly no GPIO
support for FT232R *yet*. If somebody else adds GPIO support for the FT232R
in a later patch, he/she should make corresponding adjustments themselves,
including naming changes. IMHO.
>> +static void ftdi_gpio_set_multiple(struct gpio_chip *gc,
>> + unsigned long *mask, unsigned long *bits)
>> +{
>> + struct usb_serial_port *port = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
>> + struct ftdi_private *priv = usb_get_serial_port_data(port);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&priv->gpio_lock);
>> +
>> + priv->gpio_value &= ~(*mask);
>> + priv->gpio_value |= *bits;
>
> gpiolib doesn't clear bits not in mask for you, so you need to OR with
> *mask here to avoid setting random other bits.
I guess you meant AND here?
>> + if (priv->gpio_output & BIT(gpio))
>> + return 0;
>> + else
>> + return 1;
>
> This could just simplified using negation (!), but perhaps this is
> easier to parse as it stands.
>
Sorry, it is not clear what your preferred action here is.
So should I leave it as is then or not?
Karoly
