Re: [RFC PATCH] RFC: drivers: gpio: helper for generic pin IRQ handling

[Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>]

On 08/12/2020 16:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:19 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:14 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
>> <info@metux.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Many gpio drivers already use gpiolib's builtin irqchip handling
>>> (CONFIG_GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP), but still has some boilerplate for retrieving
>>> the actual Linux IRQ number and calling into the generic handler.
>>> That boilerplate can be reduced by moving that into a helper function.
>>>
>>> This is an RFC patch to outline how that could be done. Note: it's
>>> completely untested yet.
>>>
>>> Several drivers still have their completely IRQ own implementation and
>>> thus can't be converted yet. Some of them perhaps could be changed to
>>> store their irq domain in the struct gpio, so the new helper could
>>> also be used for those.
>>>
>>> Having all GPIO drivers doing their IRQ management entirely through the
>>> GPIO subsystem (eg. never calling generic_handle_irq() and using the builtin
>>> IRQ handling) would also allow a more direct (eg. callback-based) pin change
>>> notification for GPIO consumers, that doesn't involve registering them as
>>> generic IRQ handlers.

Above part makes me worry - why?

>>>
>>> Further reduction of boilerplate could be achieved by additional helpers
>>> for common patterns like for_each_set_bit() loops on irq masks.
>>
>> Have you able to test them all?
>> As the PCA953x case showed us this is not so simple, besides the name
>> which sucks — we don't *raise* and IRQ we *handle* it.
>>
>> NAK.
> 
> To be on constructive side what I think can help here:
> - split patch on per driver basis (and first patch is a simple
> introduction of new API)
> - rename function
> - in each new per-driver patch explain what is the difference in behaviour
> - test as many as you can and explain in a cover letter what has been
> done and what are the expectations on the ones that you weren't able
> to test.
> 

agree.

-- 
Best regards,
grygorii