Hello Xue.
On 31/08/2018 23:46, Xue Liu wrote:
> The struct mcr20a_platform_data is uesed only in probe function
> and it holds only one member. So it is not necessary to reserve it.
>
> Using gpiod family API to handle reset pin.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xue Liu <liuxuenetmail@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c | 64 +++++++--------------------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c
> index 04891429a554..44de81e5f140 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/mcr20a.c
> @@ -132,11 +132,6 @@ static const struct reg_sequence mar20a_iar_overwrites[] = {
> };
>
> #define MCR20A_VALID_CHANNELS (0x07FFF800)
> -
> -struct mcr20a_platform_data {
> - int rst_gpio;
> -};
> -
> #define MCR20A_MAX_BUF (127)
>
> #define printdev(X) (&X->spi->dev)
> @@ -412,7 +407,6 @@ struct mcr20a_local {
> struct spi_device *spi;
>
> struct ieee802154_hw *hw;
> - struct mcr20a_platform_data *pdata;
> struct regmap *regmap_dar;
> struct regmap *regmap_iar;
>
> @@ -976,20 +970,6 @@ static irqreturn_t mcr20a_irq_isr(int irq, void *data)
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
> -static int mcr20a_get_platform_data(struct spi_device *spi,
> - struct mcr20a_platform_data *pdata)
> -{
> - int ret = 0;
> -
> - if (!spi->dev.of_node)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - pdata->rst_gpio = of_get_named_gpio(spi->dev.of_node, "rst_b-gpio", 0);
> - dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "rst_b-gpio: %d\n", pdata->rst_gpio);
> -
> - return ret;
> -}
> -
> static void mcr20a_hw_setup(struct mcr20a_local *lp)
> {
> u8 i;
> @@ -1249,7 +1229,7 @@ mcr20a_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> {
> struct ieee802154_hw *hw;
> struct mcr20a_local *lp;
> - struct mcr20a_platform_data *pdata;
> + struct gpio_desc *rst_b;
> int irq_type;
> int ret = -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -1260,48 +1240,32 @@ mcr20a_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - pdata = kmalloc(sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!pdata)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> - /* set mcr20a platform data */
> - ret = mcr20a_get_platform_data(spi, pdata);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_crit(&spi->dev, "mcr20a_get_platform_data failed.\n");
> - goto free_pdata;
> - }
> -
> - /* init reset gpio */
> - if (gpio_is_valid(pdata->rst_gpio)) {
> - ret = devm_gpio_request_one(&spi->dev, pdata->rst_gpio,
> - GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH, "reset");
> - if (ret)
> - goto free_pdata;
> + rst_b = devm_gpiod_get(&spi->dev, "rst_b", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
I am a bit confused about the pin name here. When using
of_get_named_gpio() the name is "rst_b-gpio" which is the same I see
referenced in the devicetree bindings file.
When switching to devm_gpiod_get() the name is shortened to "rst_b".
Does the gpiod API implicitly add a -gpio to the name when searching for
it in the dst?
The reason I ask is that I would want to avoid a name change of the
property. That would break the dts bindings already in place.
> + if (IS_ERR(rst_b)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(rst_b);
> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + dev_err(&spi->dev, "Failed to get 'rst_b' gpio: %d", ret);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /* reset mcr20a */
> - if (gpio_is_valid(pdata->rst_gpio)) {
> - usleep_range(10, 20);
> - gpio_set_value_cansleep(pdata->rst_gpio, 0);
> - usleep_range(10, 20);
> - gpio_set_value_cansleep(pdata->rst_gpio, 1);
> - usleep_range(120, 240);
> - }
> + usleep_range(10, 20);
> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rst_b, 1);
> + usleep_range(10, 20);
> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(rst_b, 0);
> + usleep_range(120, 240);
With your change you reversing the setting from ->0->1 to ->1->0. Is the
gpiod API reverse here or did you made a copy and paste mistake? :-)
>
> /* allocate ieee802154_hw and private data */
> hw = ieee802154_alloc_hw(sizeof(*lp), &mcr20a_hw_ops);
> if (!hw) {
> dev_crit(&spi->dev, "ieee802154_alloc_hw failed\n");
> - ret = -ENOMEM;
> - goto free_pdata;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /* init mcr20a local data */
> lp = hw->priv;
> lp->hw = hw;
> lp->spi = spi;
> - lp->spi->dev.platform_data = pdata;
> - lp->pdata = pdata;
>
> /* init ieee802154_hw */
> hw->parent = &spi->dev;
> @@ -1370,8 +1334,6 @@ mcr20a_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>
> free_dev:
> ieee802154_free_hw(lp->hw);
> -free_pdata:
> - kfree(pdata);
>
> return ret;
> }
>
The rest looks good to me and I like that we can get rid of all the
boiler code associated with the pdata.
If you could clarify (and potentially fix) the two points I raised I
would be happy to apply this.
regards
Stefan Schmidt
