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. I have no opinion on the other comments and I am OK with the rest of the patch. Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
