From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/5] add gpio_chip_ops to hold GPIO operations
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:20:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1396981215-24888-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> (raw)
In the kernel there are basically two patterns to implement object
oriented code in C. You can either embedded a set of function pointers
in a struct along with other members or have a separate virtual function
table (vtable) structure that hold all the functions and only store a
pointer to that vtable on our particular object.
The struct gpio_chip uses the former approach, but I don't know if that
is a design decision or is just that this code predates the fact that
the separate structure pattern is now so popular. Since the having a
the operations on a different structure has a number of benefits:
- A clean separation between state (fields) and operations (functions).
- Size reduction of struct gpio_chip since will only hold one pointer.
- These functions are not supposed to change at runtime so the const
qualifier can be used to prevent pointers modification during execution.
- Similar drivers for a chip family can reuse their function vtable.
There is a drawback though which is that now two memory accesses are
needed to execute a GPIO operation since an additional level of
indirection is introduced but that should be minimized due temporal and
spatial memory locality.
So this is an RFC patch-set to add a virtual table to be used by
GPIO chip controllers and consist of the following patches:
Javier Martinez Canillas (5):
gpio: add a vtable to abstract GPIO controller operations
gpiolib: set gpio_chip operations on add using a gpio_chip_ops
gpio: omap: convert driver to use gpio_chip_ops
gpio: twl4030: convert driver to use gpio_chip_ops
gpio: switch to use struct struct gpio_chip_ops
drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 19 ++++++++-----
drivers/gpio/gpio-twl4030.c | 10 +++++--
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
include/linux/gpio/driver.h | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
4 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
The patch-set is not a complete one though since only the GPIO OMAP
and GPIO TWL4030 drivers have been converted so I could test it on
my platform (DM3730 OMAP IGEPv2 board).
But I preferred to send an early RFC than changing every single driver
before discussing if doing the split is worth it or not.
To not break git bisect-ability, I added some patches that are
transitional changes. If you have a better suggestion on how to
handle that please let me know.
Thanks a lot and best regards,
Javier
--
1.9.0
next reply other threads:[~2014-04-08 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-08 18:20 Javier Martinez Canillas [this message]
2014-04-08 18:20 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] gpio: add a vtable to abstract GPIO controller operations Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-08 18:20 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] gpiolib: set gpio_chip operations on add using a gpio_chip_ops Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-08 18:20 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] gpio: omap: convert driver to use gpio_chip_ops Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-08 18:20 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] gpio: twl4030: " Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-08 18:20 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] gpio: switch to use struct struct gpio_chip_ops Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-10 7:36 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] add gpio_chip_ops to hold GPIO operations Alexandre Courbot
2014-04-10 9:34 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-10 11:00 ` Andy Shevchenko
2014-04-10 11:46 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-22 11:36 ` Linus Walleij
2014-04-22 12:28 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-04-22 14:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
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=1396981215-24888-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk \
--to=javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk \
--cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).