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. regards, Henning > I have no opinion on the other comments and I am OK with the rest of > the patch. > > Simon
