[PATCH v1 0/2] gpiolib: Align prototypes of *gpio_count() APIs

Andy Shevchenko posted 2 patches 1 year, 11 months ago
There is a newer version of this series
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 13 ++++++-------
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h |  4 ++--
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c   | 13 ++++++-------
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.h   |  5 +++--
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c      |  4 ++--
5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
[PATCH v1 0/2] gpiolib: Align prototypes of *gpio_count() APIs
Posted by Andy Shevchenko 1 year, 11 months ago
Two out of three GPIO count APIs take device pointer. OF case clearly
does not need it as it immediately switches to device node inside, and
ACPI abstracts that to struct acpi_device pointer. Unify all these by
making them to take struct fwnode_handle pointer. This, in particular,
will allow to create fwnode_gpio_count() API if needed. The need of that
was discussed here [1].

Note, no functional changes intended.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/2ad735ed-963c-4e75-b83e-687ea2c0aef5@alliedtelesis.co.nz [1]

Andy Shevchenko (2):
  gpiolib-of: Make of_gpio_get_count() take firmware node as a parameter
  gpiolib-acpi: Make acpi_gpio_count() take firmware node as a parameter

 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 13 ++++++-------
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h |  4 ++--
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c   | 13 ++++++-------
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.h   |  5 +++--
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c      |  4 ++--
 5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0.rc1.1.gbec44491f096
Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] gpiolib: Align prototypes of *gpio_count() APIs
Posted by Linus Walleij 1 year, 11 months ago
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Two out of three GPIO count APIs take device pointer. OF case clearly
> does not need it as it immediately switches to device node inside, and
> ACPI abstracts that to struct acpi_device pointer. Unify all these by
> making them to take struct fwnode_handle pointer. This, in particular,
> will allow to create fwnode_gpio_count() API if needed. The need of that
> was discussed here [1].

This looks reasonable to me:
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Yours,
Linus Walleij