From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754347Ab3EVIp7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2013 04:45:59 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:35436 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751094Ab3EVIpy (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2013 04:45:54 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,718,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="338098332" Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:50:00 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Linus Walleij , David Cohen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] gpio-langwell: use managed functions pcim_* and devm_* Message-ID: <20130522085000.GY11878@intel.com> References: <1369208859-16514-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1369208859-16514-4-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20130522080529.GW11878@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:36:15AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mika Westerberg > wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:47:38AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> This makes the error handling much more simpler than open-coding everything and > >> in addition makes the probe function smaller an tidier. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko > > > > In general this change looks good. Getting rid of 61 lines is certainly an > > improvement! > > > > David, are you able to check that this still works on your hardware? (I'm > > pretty sure that Andy has tested this already on Medfield) > > I also wonder if it still okay on other platforms where this IP block > is embedded. > > > I have few minor comments, though. See below. > > Thank you for the review. See my answers below. > > >> --- > >> drivers/gpio/gpio-langwell.c | 82 ++++++++++++-------------------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-langwell.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-langwell.c > >> index 8203084..8672282 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-langwell.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-langwell.c > >> @@ -320,56 +320,35 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops lnw_gpio_pm_ops = { > >> static int lnw_gpio_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, > >> const struct pci_device_id *id) > >> { > >> - void __iomem *base; > >> - resource_size_t start, len; > >> struct lnw_gpio *lnw; > >> u32 gpio_base; > >> u32 irq_base; > >> int retval; > >> int ngpio = id->driver_data; > >> > >> - retval = pci_enable_device(pdev); > >> + retval = pcim_enable_device(pdev); > >> if (retval) > >> return retval; > >> > >> - retval = pci_request_regions(pdev, "langwell_gpio"); > >> + retval = pcim_iomap_regions(pdev, 1 << 0 | 1 << 1, pci_name(pdev)); > > > > I wonder if "langwell_gpio" is still a better name compared to > > pci_name(pdev)? > > This is used as an internal name for certain resource. > > It could be seen in case of using printk("%pR") for example. But even > in that case I prefer to see the actual device as well to which > the resource belongs to. > > My general opinion is better to use pci_name(pdev) in the pci drivers instead > of hardcoded pseudo-unique strings. Fair enough :) > >> if (retval) { > >> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "error requesting resources\n"); > >> - goto err_pci_req_region; > >> - } > >> - /* get the gpio_base from bar1 */ > >> - start = pci_resource_start(pdev, 1); > >> - len = pci_resource_len(pdev, 1); > >> - base = ioremap_nocache(start, len); > >> - if (!base) { > >> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "error mapping bar1\n"); > >> - retval = -EFAULT; > >> - goto err_ioremap; > >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "I/O memory mapping error\n"); > >> + return retval; > >> } > >> > >> - irq_base = readl(base); > >> - gpio_base = readl(sizeof(u32) + base); > >> + irq_base = readl(pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[1]); > >> + gpio_base = readl(sizeof(u32) + pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[1]); > > > > Using pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[] is a bit confusing, at least for me. Can you > > add a variable where you store that pointer and use that instead? > > [Hmm... It returns pointer to an array of pointers. > Okay, I will relive base variable for this as we discussed privately. Cool, thanks!