From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
thierry.reding@gmail.com, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
david.brown@linaro.org, andy.gross@linaro.org,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] gpiolib: add bitmask for valid GPIO lines
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:12:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1509441149.10233.80.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1509396602-1936-3-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org>
On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 15:50 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Add support for specifying that some GPIOs within a range are
> unavailable.
> Some systems have a sparse list of GPIOs, where a range of GPIOs is
> specified (usually 0 to n-1), but some subset within that range is
> absent or unavailable for whatever reason.
>
> To support this, allow drivers to specify a bitmask of GPIOs that
> are present or absent. Gpiolib will then block access to those that
> are absent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>
>
>
> static int gpiochip_irqchip_init_valid_mask(struct gpio_chip
> *gpiochip)
> {
Instead of mangling this function wouldn't be better to introduce a
separate one for line and perhaps a third one which calls them both?
> - if (!gpiochip->irq_need_valid_mask)
> - return 0;
> + if (gpiochip->irq_need_valid_mask) {
> + gpiochip->irq_valid_mask =
> + kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(gpiochip->ngpio),
> + sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!gpiochip->irq_valid_mask)
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> - gpiochip->irq_valid_mask = kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(gpiochip-
> >ngpio),
> - sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!gpiochip->irq_valid_mask)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + /* Assume by default all GPIOs are valid */
> + bitmap_fill(gpiochip->irq_valid_mask, gpiochip-
> >ngpio);
> + }
>
> - /* Assume by default all GPIOs are valid */
> - bitmap_fill(gpiochip->irq_valid_mask, gpiochip->ngpio);
> + if (gpiochip->line_need_valid_mask) {
> + gpiochip->line_valid_mask =
> + kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(gpiochip->ngpio),
> + sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!gpiochip->line_valid_mask)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + /* Assume by default all GPIOs are valid */
> + bitmap_fill(gpiochip->line_valid_mask, gpiochip-
> >ngpio);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
...for my opinion it will drastically increase readability and reduce
diff as well (better for review).
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (Andy Shevchenko)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] gpiolib: add bitmask for valid GPIO lines
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:12:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1509441149.10233.80.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1509396602-1936-3-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org>
On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 15:50 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Add support for specifying that some GPIOs within a range are
> unavailable.
> Some systems have a sparse list of GPIOs, where a range of GPIOs is
> specified (usually 0 to n-1), but some subset within that range is
> absent or unavailable for whatever reason.
>
> To support this, allow drivers to specify a bitmask of GPIOs that
> are present or absent. Gpiolib will then block access to those that
> are absent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>
>
>
> static int gpiochip_irqchip_init_valid_mask(struct gpio_chip
> *gpiochip)
> {
Instead of mangling this function wouldn't be better to introduce a
separate one for line and perhaps a third one which calls them both?
> - if (!gpiochip->irq_need_valid_mask)
> - return 0;
> + if (gpiochip->irq_need_valid_mask) {
> + gpiochip->irq_valid_mask =
> + kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(gpiochip->ngpio),
> + sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!gpiochip->irq_valid_mask)
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> - gpiochip->irq_valid_mask = kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(gpiochip-
> >ngpio),
> - sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!gpiochip->irq_valid_mask)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + /* Assume by default all GPIOs are valid */
> + bitmap_fill(gpiochip->irq_valid_mask, gpiochip-
> >ngpio);
> + }
>
> - /* Assume by default all GPIOs are valid */
> - bitmap_fill(gpiochip->irq_valid_mask, gpiochip->ngpio);
> + if (gpiochip->line_need_valid_mask) {
> + gpiochip->line_valid_mask =
> + kcalloc(BITS_TO_LONGS(gpiochip->ngpio),
> + sizeof(long), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!gpiochip->line_valid_mask)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + /* Assume by default all GPIOs are valid */
> + bitmap_fill(gpiochip->line_valid_mask, gpiochip-
> >ngpio);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
...for my opinion it will drastically increase readability and reduce
diff as well (better for review).
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-31 9:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-30 20:49 [PATCH 0/4] [v6] pinctrl: qcom: add support for sparse GPIOs Timur Tabi
2017-10-30 20:49 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-30 20:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] Revert "gpio: set up initial state from .get_direction()" Timur Tabi
2017-10-30 20:49 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 9:08 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-31 9:08 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-31 12:28 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 12:28 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 12:33 ` Fabio Estevam
2017-10-31 12:33 ` Fabio Estevam
2017-10-31 12:36 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 12:36 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 12:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-31 12:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-30 20:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] gpiolib: add bitmask for valid GPIO lines Timur Tabi
2017-10-30 20:50 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 9:12 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2017-10-31 9:12 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-31 18:54 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 18:54 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-31 19:05 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-31 19:05 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-10-30 20:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] [v6] pinctrl: qcom: disable GPIO groups with no pins Timur Tabi
2017-10-30 20:50 ` Timur Tabi
2017-10-30 20:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] [v3] pinctrl: qcom: qdf2xxx: add support for new ACPI HID QCOM8002 Timur Tabi
2017-10-30 20:50 ` Timur Tabi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-11-07 23:07 [PATCH 0/4] [v7] pinctrl: qcom: add support for sparse GPIOs Timur Tabi
2017-11-07 23:07 ` [PATCH 2/4] gpiolib: add bitmask for valid GPIO lines Timur Tabi
2017-11-07 23:07 ` Timur Tabi
2017-12-01 11:38 ` Archit Taneja
2017-12-01 11:38 ` Archit Taneja
2017-12-01 17:16 ` Timur Tabi
2017-12-01 17:16 ` Timur Tabi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1509441149.10233.80.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andy.gross@linaro.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=david.brown@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.