Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] extcon: sm5502: Refactor driver to use chip-specific struct | From | Chanwoo Choi <> | Date | Thu, 3 Jun 2021 00:35:58 +0900 |
| |
On 21. 6. 3. 오전 12:30, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 21. 6. 3. 오전 12:20, Stephan Gerhold wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:13:18AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>> On 21. 6. 2. 오전 5:00, Stephan Gerhold wrote: >>>> Prepare for supporting SM5504 in the extcon-sm5502 driver by replacing >>>> enum sm5504_types with a struct sm5504_type that stores the >>>> chip-specific >>>> definitions. This struct can then be defined separately for SM5504 >>>> without having to add if (type == TYPE_SM5504) everywhere in the code. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in v3: New patch to simplify diff on next patch >>>> --- >>>> drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c | 64 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>> drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.h | 4 --- >>>> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c >>>> b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c >>>> index 9f40bb9f1f81..951f6ca4c479 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-sm5502.c >>>> @@ -40,17 +40,13 @@ struct sm5502_muic_info { >>>> struct i2c_client *i2c; >>>> struct regmap *regmap; >>>> + const struct sm5502_type *type; >>>> struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data; >>>> - struct muic_irq *muic_irqs; >>>> - unsigned int num_muic_irqs; >>>> int irq; >>>> bool irq_attach; >>>> bool irq_detach; >>>> struct work_struct irq_work; >>>> - struct reg_data *reg_data; >>>> - unsigned int num_reg_data; >>>> - >>>> struct mutex mutex; >>>> /* >>>> @@ -62,6 +58,17 @@ struct sm5502_muic_info { >>>> struct delayed_work wq_detcable; >>>> }; >>>> +struct sm5502_type { >>>> + struct muic_irq *muic_irqs; >>>> + unsigned int num_muic_irqs; >>>> + const struct regmap_irq_chip *irq_chip; >>>> + >>>> + struct reg_data *reg_data; >>>> + unsigned int num_reg_data; >>>> + >>>> + int (*parse_irq)(struct sm5502_muic_info *info, int irq_type); >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> /* Default value of SM5502 register to bring up MUIC device. */ >>>> static struct reg_data sm5502_reg_data[] = { >>>> { >>>> @@ -502,11 +509,11 @@ static irqreturn_t sm5502_muic_irq_handler(int >>>> irq, void *data) >>>> struct sm5502_muic_info *info = data; >>>> int i, irq_type = -1, ret; >>>> - for (i = 0; i < info->num_muic_irqs; i++) >>>> - if (irq == info->muic_irqs[i].virq) >>>> - irq_type = info->muic_irqs[i].irq; >>>> + for (i = 0; i < info->type->num_muic_irqs; i++) >>>> + if (irq == info->type->muic_irqs[i].virq) >>>> + irq_type = info->type->muic_irqs[i].irq; >>>> - ret = sm5502_parse_irq(info, irq_type); >>>> + ret = info->type->parse_irq(info, irq_type); >>> >>> Looks good to me. But there is only one comment. >>> Need to check the 'parse_irq' as following: >>> >>> If you agree this suggestion, I'll apply with following changes by >>> myself: >>> >>> if (!info->type->parse_irq) { >>> dev_err(info->dev, "failed to handle irq due to parse_irq\n", >>> return IRQ_NONE; >>> } >>> >>> >> >> This condition should be impossible, since .parse_irq is set for both >> SM5502 and SM5504: >> >> static const struct sm5502_type sm5502_data = { >> /* ... */ >> .parse_irq = sm5502_parse_irq, >> }; >> >> static const struct sm5502_type sm5504_data = { >> /* ... */ >> .parse_irq = sm5504_parse_irq, >> }; >> >> Which failure case are you trying to handle with that if statement? > > There is not failure case of this patchset. But, this refactoring > suggestion has the potential problem without checking whether mandatory > function pointer is NULL or not. When adding new chip by using this > driver, the author might have the human error without parse_irq > initialization even if the mandatory. >
Instead, it is better to check whether parser_irq is NULL or not on probe function in order to reduce the unnecessary repetitive checking.
>> >> Thanks! >> Stephan >> > >
-- Best Regards, Samsung Electronics Chanwoo Choi
| |