lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 05/10] mfd: max77650: new core mfd driver
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

> wt., 12 lut 2019 o 12:14 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 11:18 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:55 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * The declaration of a superfluous struct
> > > > > > * 100 lines of additional/avoidable code
> > > > > > * Hacky hoop jumping trying to fudge VIRQs into resources
> > > > > > * Resources were designed for HWIRQs (unless a domain is present)
> > > > > > * Loads of additional/avoidable CPU cycles setting all this up
> > > > >
> > > > > While the above may be right, this one is negligible and you know it. :)
> > > >
> > > > You have nested for() loops. You *are* wasting lots of cycles.
> > > >
> > > > > > Need I go on? :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Surely the fact that you are using both sides of an API
> > > > > > (devm_regmap_init_i2c and regmap_irq_get_*) in the same driver, must
> > > > > > set some alarm bells ringing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This whole HWIRQ setting, VIRQ getting, resource hacking is a mess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And for what? To avoid passing IRQ data to a child driver?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you propose? Should I go back to the approach in v1 and pass
> > > > > the regmap_irq_chip_data to child drivers?
> > > >
> > > > I'm saying you should remove all of this hackery and pass IRQs as they
> > > > are supposed to be passed (like everyone else does).
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "like everyone else does" - different
> > > mfd drivers seem to be doing different things. Is a simple struct
> > > containing virtual irq numbers passed to sub-drivers fine?
> >
> > How do you plan on deriving the VIRQs to place into the struct?
>
> Exampe:
>
> struct max77650_gpio_pdata {
> int gpi_irq;
> };
>
> In MFD driver:
>
> struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = devm_kmalloc(dev, sizeof(*gpio_data));
>
> gpio_data->gpi_irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(irqchip_data, GPI_NUM);
>
> gpio_cell.platform_data = gpio_data;
>
> In GPIO driver:
>
> struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>
> int irq = gpio_data->gpi_irq;

Definitely not. What you're trying to do is a hack.

If you're using Regmap to handle your IRQs, then you should use Regmap
in the client to pull them out. Setting them via Regmap, then pulling
them out again in the *same driver*, only to store them in platform
data to be passed to a child device is bonkers.

*Either* use the MFD provided platform-data helpers *or* pass and
handle them via the Regmap APIs, *not* both.

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-12 14:20    [W:0.070 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site