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
Hi Peter,

Thanks for the comments.

On 07/10/2017 03:07 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 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.
Let me go through it and get back to you.
>
> Cheers,
> peda
>

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux kernel developer

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-10 23:38    [W:0.054 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site