From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C29AC47083 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:42:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A16613D7 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:42:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230407AbhFBPoi (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:44:38 -0400 Received: from mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.51]:14757 "EHLO mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231837AbhFBPoi (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:44:38 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1622648568; cv=none; d=strato.com; s=strato-dkim-0002; b=nHPhEbhw3GtWZh395foZPkBGtmGcLKIFZh8XNK3thfk9ds732t8lzzg9mgKToEmUTi yKFSiXAdBVw5FfUmB/LBtdszrrTasZkvwf4swK42QlRgX/lX8or0l4OPj2y4TU8ay0x8 cxz9shahoG988nSzPhglK3TFHKjVS8MctfbswZRhKGobvCi5R8zll4lks0SlkUgVNsKF SlojVIYSJL+ufmtnMdUsBZq1+V7EgG2FgUBawjekko8x66FwuAPv2xGBzetNctRki4zb 8hE7vOUH3TZ6KVEFEmQcf051t/Vh5DFg97ETgA/nR6hXg+2o19fgvRfxOHjz9osFIONO Xupw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1622648568; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=strato.com; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=5p/0Zp4I29UELEPG0LINP5Cg95GbvMFVWa4EZnENcbk=; b=OSaDGeOpxm4+IVfPsPja38ZW6krI8620m75UuQg7fRX34oi670Hyz/CoZ/xAR0EL0L l3nPxA+OaZ9XZjYASOmSw7IVdAhD72MPi1h0Z5WAihpCwJ+lWgvs72gHjY/HAmEnmKCY qN5AZUlz9RLZOWgEhqgp+bbpqvDtXq1DK5RPO13dZSKzGsvY/WtI6rMOgh/Rz96CmhvD 35RjoguD8bRg5yF7Fx8zAphux0hyH8NLQu0i/yp9mUY2LTnhO9IdFwmxLJBIV1qQYAAq BORiBSsWwgj14sUOMUXb+PjXPHZBTKoM2zKlvDb0MkBCiLg9syNDNpv/vtsZIST4lv7D h4qg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; strato.com; dkim=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1622648568; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=5p/0Zp4I29UELEPG0LINP5Cg95GbvMFVWa4EZnENcbk=; b=SIB27v/OV0Kq/sdIFTva3iL87Wh/Dp0DFIXiMg1OYCre+Lq7cIGFRcM/Fp9glWIjdq wT09wVpVdf9eOpHleOUjLJe5PrHmSAscFcSjdRi5RZ2OijJt4ZekuLi/Ea7VB7nZZwrf cRnorvvVyQ+FtLnW+j7BvR+Tf+XJVowiwxhLHYDm8Z5c7cwWXsXVmRyvyRR6ek3pYl06 BsEiEll6Y6nVqHTxONW22wPT1UJ5Fi/XrYY2gLwrd5PCJ3z4sXV6DhcBxt50w6ugueqA KKzvyj8VfJKXslsyz2/ojk0SONyCaN56kJPCablRDFzquIIzHZ365AZLOW0nZEww98BN DR3Q== Authentication-Results: strato.com; dkim=none X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u26zEodhPgRDZ8j6IcjHBg==" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 47.27.2 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id y01375x52Fgl3XW (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:42:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:42:46 +0200 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Chanwoo Choi Cc: Chanwoo Choi , MyungJoo Ham , Rob Herring , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nikita Travkin , ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] extcon: sm5502: Refactor driver to use chip-specific struct Message-ID: References: <20210601200007.218802-1-stephan@gerhold.net> <20210601200007.218802-3-stephan@gerhold.net> <83b00ca8-aa70-6c4b-5f9f-eebf571ee621@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:35:58AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 21. 6. 3. 오전 12:30, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > > On 21. 6. 3. 오전 12:20, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:13:18AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > > > > On 21. 6. 2. 오전 5:00, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > > > > Prepare for supporting SM5504 in the extcon-sm5502 driver by replacing > > > > > enum sm5504_types with a struct sm5504_type that stores the > > > > > chip-specific > > > > > definitions. This struct can then be defined separately for SM5504 > > > > > without having to add if (type == TYPE_SM5504) everywhere in the code. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes in v3: New patch to simplify diff on next patch > > > > > --- > > > > >    drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c | 64 > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > > > >    drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.h |  4 --- > > > > >    2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c > > > > > b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c > > > > > index 9f40bb9f1f81..951f6ca4c479 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c > > > > > @@ -40,17 +40,13 @@ struct sm5502_muic_info { > > > > >        struct i2c_client *i2c; > > > > >        struct regmap *regmap; > > > > > +    const struct sm5502_type *type; > > > > >        struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data; > > > > > -    struct muic_irq *muic_irqs; > > > > > -    unsigned int num_muic_irqs; > > > > >        int irq; > > > > >        bool irq_attach; > > > > >        bool irq_detach; > > > > >        struct work_struct irq_work; > > > > > -    struct reg_data *reg_data; > > > > > -    unsigned int num_reg_data; > > > > > - > > > > >        struct mutex mutex; > > > > >        /* > > > > > @@ -62,6 +58,17 @@ struct sm5502_muic_info { > > > > >        struct delayed_work wq_detcable; > > > > >    }; > > > > > +struct sm5502_type { > > > > > +    struct muic_irq *muic_irqs; > > > > > +    unsigned int num_muic_irqs; > > > > > +    const struct regmap_irq_chip *irq_chip; > > > > > + > > > > > +    struct reg_data *reg_data; > > > > > +    unsigned int num_reg_data; > > > > > + > > > > > +    int (*parse_irq)(struct sm5502_muic_info *info, int irq_type); > > > > > +}; > > > > > + > > > > >    /* Default value of SM5502 register to bring up MUIC device. */ > > > > >    static struct reg_data sm5502_reg_data[] = { > > > > >        { > > > > > @@ -502,11 +509,11 @@ static irqreturn_t > > > > > sm5502_muic_irq_handler(int irq, void *data) > > > > >        struct sm5502_muic_info *info = data; > > > > >        int i, irq_type = -1, ret; > > > > > -    for (i = 0; i < info->num_muic_irqs; i++) > > > > > -        if (irq == info->muic_irqs[i].virq) > > > > > -            irq_type = info->muic_irqs[i].irq; > > > > > +    for (i = 0; i < info->type->num_muic_irqs; i++) > > > > > +        if (irq == info->type->muic_irqs[i].virq) > > > > > +            irq_type = info->type->muic_irqs[i].irq; > > > > > -    ret = sm5502_parse_irq(info, irq_type); > > > > > +    ret = info->type->parse_irq(info, irq_type); > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. But there is only one comment. > > > > Need to check the 'parse_irq' as following: > > > > > > > > If you agree this suggestion, I'll apply with following changes > > > > by myself: > > > > > > > >     if (!info->type->parse_irq) { > > > >         dev_err(info->dev, "failed to handle irq due to parse_irq\n", > > > >         return IRQ_NONE; > > > >     } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This condition should be impossible, since .parse_irq is set for both > > > SM5502 and SM5504: > > > > > > static const struct sm5502_type sm5502_data = { > > >     /* ... */ > > >     .parse_irq = sm5502_parse_irq, > > > }; > > > > > > static const struct sm5502_type sm5504_data = { > > >     /* ... */ > > >     .parse_irq = sm5504_parse_irq, > > > }; > > > > > > Which failure case are you trying to handle with that if statement? > > > > There is not failure case of this patchset. But, this refactoring > > suggestion has the potential problem without checking whether mandatory > > function pointer is NULL or not. When adding new chip by using this > > driver, the author might have the human error without parse_irq > > initialization even if the mandatory. > > > > Instead, it is better to check whether parser_irq is NULL or not > on probe function in order to reduce the unnecessary repetitive checking. > Thanks for the explanation. This suggestion sounds better to me. (Although I consider it unlikely that someone would forget to define .parse_irq when adding a new chip...) Feel free to add something like the below when applying. Or let me know if I should re-send with this change: diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c index af44c1e2f368..93da2d8379b1 100644 --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c @@ -694,6 +694,10 @@ static int sm5022_muic_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c) info->type = device_get_match_data(info->dev); if (!info->type) return -EINVAL; + if (!info->type->parse_irq) { + dev_err(info->dev, "parse_irq missing in struct sm5502_type\n"); + return -EINVAL; + } mutex_init(&info->mutex); Thanks for your review! Stephan