lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/1] mux: Add new API to get mux_control ref by device name.
From
Date
On 2017-07-09 01:24, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 7/8/2017 2:12 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-07-08 00:03, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> Currently this driver only provides a single API, mux_control_get() to
>>> get mux_control reference based on mux_name, and also this API has tight
>>> dependency on device tree node. For devices, that does not use device
>>> tree, it makes it difficult to use this API. This patch adds new
>>> API to access mux_control reference based on device name, chip index and
>>> controller index value.
>> I assume this is for the Intel USB Multiplexer that you sent a driver for
>> a month or so ago? If so, you still have not answered these questions:
> I am not planning to merge the Intel USB MUX driver any more. I agree
> with Hans comments
> and decided not to proceed further on this approach.
>
> But I created these helper functions to get my driver working with MUX
> framework. Since these
> helper functions can be useful for any non-dt drivers who wants to use
> MUX framework, I thought
> to submit these changes for review.
>>
>> Is any other consumer in the charts at all? Can this existing consumer
>> ever make use of some other mux? If the answer to both those questions
>> are 'no', then I do not see much point in involving the mux subsystem at
>> all. The Broxton USB PHY driver could just as well write to the register
>> all by itself, no?
>>
>> that I asked in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/31/58
>>
>> What is the point of that driver?
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mux/mux-core.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/mux/consumer.h | 6 ++-
>>> 2 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> index 90b8995..f8796b9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
>>> @@ -422,6 +422,87 @@ static struct mux_chip *of_find_mux_chip_by_node(struct device_node *np)
>>> return dev ? to_mux_chip(dev) : NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int dev_parent_name_match(struct device *dev, const void *data)
>>> +{
>>> + const char *devname = dev_name(dev->parent);
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> +
>>> + if (!devname || !data)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < strlen(devname); i++) {
>>> + if (devname[i] == '.')
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return !strncmp(devname, data, i-1);
>> Ouch, strlen as a termination test is wasteful, you want to remove the loop
>> and do something like this
>>
>> return !strncmp(devname, data, strcspn(devname, "."));
> will fix it in next version.
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * mux_chip_get_by_index() - Get the mux-chip associated with give device.
>>> + * @devname: Name of the device which registered the mux-chip.
>>> + * @index: Index of the mux chip.
>>> + *
>>> + * Return: A pointer to the mux-chip, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
>>> + */
>>> +static struct mux_chip *mux_chip_get_by_index(const char *devname, int index)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device *dev;
>>> + int found = -1;
>>> +
>>> + if (!devname)
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> +
>>> + do {
>>> + dev = class_find_device(&mux_class, NULL, devname,
>>> + dev_parent_name_match);
>>> +
>>> + if (dev != NULL)
>>> + found++;
>>> +
>>> + if (found >= index)
>>> + break;
>>> + } while (dev != NULL);
>> This loop is broken. class_find_device will always return the same device.
> Good catch. I did not test the case with multiple chips. So I failed to
> notice this.
>>
>> Also, if you fix the loop, why is the ordering stable and something to rely
>> on?

You failed to comment on this very important point. Sorry for not putting
more emphasis on it. So, before you waste more time on the indexed approach,
have a look at e.g. the pwm core with its pwm_get (which takes a name) and
its *deprecated* pwm_request (which takes an index).

I think having a lookup table (like pwm) is closer to what the mux core
should do. Or something like that.

Cheers,
peda

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-10 12:08    [W:0.078 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site