From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
linus.walleij@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from struct gpio_desc
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:29:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZXnb-ks_noYLWZZ2@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Mfj_4YvQVP=UWkULBwJniDDjapttU+qSgqfN5ZWNgikKw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 05:15:38PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:12 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:59:26PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:27 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:54:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 01:42:50PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
...
> > > > > > > +static struct supinfo supinfo;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why supinfo should be a struct to begin with? Seems to me as an unneeded
> > > > > > complication.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should keep it as a struct but defined the following way:
> > > >
> > > > struct {
> > > > spinlock_t lock;
> > > > struct rb_root tree;
> > > > } supinfo;
> > >
> > > That is what I meant be merging the struct definition with the variable
> > > definition. Or is there some other way to completely do away with the
> > > struct that I'm missing?
> >
> > Look at the top of gpiolib.c:
> >
> > static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_lookup_lock);
> > static LIST_HEAD(gpio_lookup_list);
> >
> > In the similar way you can simply do
> >
> > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(gpio_sup_lock);
> > static struct rb_root gpio_sup_tree;
>
> The fact that this has been like this, doesn't mean it's the only
> right way. IMO putting these into the same structure makes logical
> sense.
I disagree on the struct like this on the grounds:
- it's global
- it's one time use
- it adds complications for no benefit
- it makes code uglier and longer
What we probably want to have is a singleton objects in C language or at least
inside Linux kernel project. But I'm not sure it's feasible.
> > > > > Yeah, that is a hangover from an earlier iteration where supinfo was
> > > > > contained in other object rather than being a global.
> > > > > Could merge the struct definition into the variable now.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-13 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-12 5:42 [PATCH 0/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us Kent Gibson
2023-12-12 5:42 ` [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from struct gpio_desc Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 13:54 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-13 14:27 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 15:40 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-13 15:59 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 16:12 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-13 16:15 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-13 16:29 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2023-12-13 19:03 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-13 20:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-14 0:18 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-14 2:15 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-14 9:40 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-14 14:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-14 14:47 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 16:14 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-13 16:15 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 16:16 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-13 16:27 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-12 5:42 ` [PATCH 2/4] gpiolib: remove " Kent Gibson
2023-12-12 5:42 ` [PATCH 3/4] gpiolib: cdev: reduce locking in gpio_desc_to_lineinfo() Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 13:56 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-13 14:07 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 15:05 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-13 15:11 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 15:28 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-12-12 5:42 ` [PATCH 4/4] gpiolib: cdev: improve documentation of get/set values Kent Gibson
2023-12-12 17:09 ` [PATCH 0/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-12 23:58 ` Kent Gibson
2023-12-13 10:03 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2023-12-13 13:17 ` Kent Gibson
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=ZXnb-ks_noYLWZZ2@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=brgl@bgdev.pl \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=warthog618@gmail.com \
/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.