Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:31:02 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from struct gpio_desc |
| |
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:06:14PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 5:41 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:14:41AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:09:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:03:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:58:11PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
...
> > > > > > +static void supinfo_init(void) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + supinfo.tree = RB_ROOT; > > > > > > + spin_lock_init(&supinfo.lock); > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > Can it be done statically? > > > > > > > > > > supinfo = { > > > > > .tree = RB_ROOT, > > > > > .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(supinfo.lock), > > Double underscore typically means it's private and shouldn't be used.
Right, but when you have a struct you have no other means to initialize this directly.
> > > > I even checked the current tree, we have 32 users of this pattern in drivers/.
See, there are users of the __ initializers.
> > > Ah, that is what you meant. Yeah sure can - the supinfo_init() is > > > another hangover from when I was trying to create the supinfo per chip, > > > but now it is a global a static initialiser makes sense. > > > > Yep, the DEFINE_MUTEX() / DEFINE_SPINLOCK() / etc looks better naturally > > than above. > > Yeah, so maybe we should use non-struct, global variables after all.
At least this will allow to get rid of (questionable) initcall.
> > > And I still haven't received the email you quote there. > > > > :-( I'm not sure we will get it, it most likely that I removed it already > > and it has disappeared due to problems with email server...
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |