lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/15 v3] regulator: max8973: Let core handle GPIO descriptor
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:34 AM Charles Keepax
<ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:58:30AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:33 PM Charles Keepax
> > <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:42:06PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:43 PM Charles Keepax
> > > > <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -775,10 +779,13 @@ static int max8973_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * We do not let the core switch this regulator on/off,
> > > > > > * we just leave it on.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Do not use devm* here: the regulator core takes over the
> > > > > > + * lifecycle management of the GPIO descriptor.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > - gpiod = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&client->dev,
> > > > > > - "maxim,enable",
> > > > > > - GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> > > > > > + gpiod = gpiod_get_optional(&client->dev,
> > > > > > + "maxim,enable",
> > > > > > + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> > > > >
> > > > > My comment on v2 still stands here, the GPIO is not passed to
> > > > > the regulator core on this path.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 01 should take care of that, did you check it?
> > >
> > > Yeah, patch 1 makes the regulator core consistently handle GPIOs
> > > that are passed into it.
> >
> > Sorry. I confused this patch for the max77686 patch. That
> > one was fixed with patch 01...
> >
> > > However, on the MAX77621 path in this
> > > switch statement the GPIO is never passed into the regulator
> > > core, so the core never takes ownership of it, so the driver still
> > > needs to manage the lifetime.
> > >
> > > It should be a pretty easy fix though as commented on v2, again
> > > apologies for the slow review.
> >
> > OK I switch it to devm_ as you suggested, as we implemented
> > gpiod_unhinge it's a piece of cake nowadays.
> >
>
> You shouldn't really need to use unhinge, you can just use devm
> on the path that doesn't pass it to the core and not on the
> one that does. You just need to update the error case below it to
> use config->ena_gpiod rather than gpiod.

Indeed I just think it will be confusing when people read the code.

It's better consistency if its just devm_* and the we unhinge the
one we pass to the regulator core IMO.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-06 12:49    [W:0.091 / U:22.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site