A private data structure struct dio48e_gpio is introduced to facilitate
passage of the regmap and IRQ mask state for the device to the callback
dio48e_handle_mask_sync(). This is in preparation for the removal of the
handle_mask_sync() map parameter in a subsequent patch.
Signed-off-by: William Breathitt Gray <william.gray@linaro.org>
---
Changes in v3:
- Inline dio48gpio->map usage in dio48e_handle_mask_sync() to avoid
redefining map parameter
drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c
index 74e2721f2613..3516321c92b0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c
@@ -99,13 +99,23 @@ static const struct regmap_irq dio48e_regmap_irqs[] = {
DIO48E_REGMAP_IRQ(0), DIO48E_REGMAP_IRQ(1),
};
+/**
+ * struct dio48e_gpio - GPIO device private data structure
+ * @map: Regmap for the device
+ * @irq_mask: Current IRQ mask state on the device
+ */
+struct dio48e_gpio {
+ struct regmap *map;
+ unsigned int irq_mask;
+};
+
static int dio48e_handle_mask_sync(struct regmap *const map, const int index,
const unsigned int mask_buf_def,
const unsigned int mask_buf,
void *const irq_drv_data)
{
- unsigned int *const irq_mask = irq_drv_data;
- const unsigned int prev_mask = *irq_mask;
+ struct dio48e_gpio *const dio48egpio = irq_drv_data;
+ const unsigned int prev_mask = dio48egpio->irq_mask;
int err;
unsigned int val;
@@ -114,19 +124,19 @@ static int dio48e_handle_mask_sync(struct regmap *const map, const int index,
return 0;
/* remember the current mask for the next mask sync */
- *irq_mask = mask_buf;
+ dio48egpio->irq_mask = mask_buf;
/* if all previously masked, enable interrupts when unmasking */
if (prev_mask == mask_buf_def) {
- err = regmap_write(map, DIO48E_CLEAR_INTERRUPT, 0x00);
+ err = regmap_write(dio48egpio->map, DIO48E_CLEAR_INTERRUPT, 0x00);
if (err)
return err;
- return regmap_write(map, DIO48E_ENABLE_INTERRUPT, 0x00);
+ return regmap_write(dio48egpio->map, DIO48E_ENABLE_INTERRUPT, 0x00);
}
/* if all are currently masked, disable interrupts */
if (mask_buf == mask_buf_def)
- return regmap_read(map, DIO48E_DISABLE_INTERRUPT, &val);
+ return regmap_read(dio48egpio->map, DIO48E_DISABLE_INTERRUPT, &val);
return 0;
}
@@ -167,7 +177,7 @@ static int dio48e_probe(struct device *dev, unsigned int id)
struct regmap *map;
int err;
struct regmap_irq_chip *chip;
- unsigned int irq_mask;
+ struct dio48e_gpio *dio48egpio;
struct regmap_irq_chip_data *chip_data;
if (!devm_request_region(dev, base[id], DIO48E_EXTENT, name)) {
@@ -185,12 +195,14 @@ static int dio48e_probe(struct device *dev, unsigned int id)
return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(map),
"Unable to initialize register map\n");
- chip = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!chip)
+ dio48egpio = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*dio48egpio), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!dio48egpio)
return -ENOMEM;
- chip->irq_drv_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(irq_mask), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!chip->irq_drv_data)
+ dio48egpio->map = map;
+
+ chip = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!chip)
return -ENOMEM;
chip->name = name;
@@ -205,6 +217,7 @@ static int dio48e_probe(struct device *dev, unsigned int id)
chip->irqs = dio48e_regmap_irqs;
chip->num_irqs = ARRAY_SIZE(dio48e_regmap_irqs);
chip->handle_mask_sync = dio48e_handle_mask_sync;
+ chip->irq_drv_data = dio48egpio;
/* Initialize to prevent spurious interrupts before we're ready */
err = dio48e_irq_init_hw(map);
--
2.39.2On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:50:15AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > A private data structure struct dio48e_gpio is introduced to facilitate > passage of the regmap and IRQ mask state for the device to the callback > dio48e_handle_mask_sync(). This is in preparation for the removal of the > handle_mask_sync() map parameter in a subsequent patch. What's the story with this patch?
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:23:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:50:15AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > A private data structure struct dio48e_gpio is introduced to facilitate > > passage of the regmap and IRQ mask state for the device to the callback > > dio48e_handle_mask_sync(). This is in preparation for the removal of the > > handle_mask_sync() map parameter in a subsequent patch. > > What's the story with this patch? Currently dio48e_handle_mask_sync() uses the map argument in its implementation. Once the map parameter is removed, the current implementation of dio48e_handle_mask_sync() will no longer build, so we must adjust the implementation to no longer depend on map. The reason for this particular patch is to keep the reimplementation of dio48e_handle_mask_sync() separate so that the handle_mask_sync() map parameter removal patch is simple. This keeps the git history clear and allows us to address any possible regressions to 104-dio-48e separately without affecting the handle_mask_sync() API. William Breathitt Gray
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:36:23PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:23:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:50:15AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > > A private data structure struct dio48e_gpio is introduced to facilitate > > > passage of the regmap and IRQ mask state for the device to the callback > > > dio48e_handle_mask_sync(). This is in preparation for the removal of the > > > handle_mask_sync() map parameter in a subsequent patch. > > What's the story with this patch? > Currently dio48e_handle_mask_sync() uses the map argument in its > implementation. Once the map parameter is removed, the current > implementation of dio48e_handle_mask_sync() will no longer build, so we > must adjust the implementation to no longer depend on map. I mean what's the story with getting this patch applied? It doesn't seem to have been reviewed...
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:15:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:36:23PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:23:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:50:15AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > > > A private data structure struct dio48e_gpio is introduced to facilitate > > > > passage of the regmap and IRQ mask state for the device to the callback > > > > dio48e_handle_mask_sync(). This is in preparation for the removal of the > > > > handle_mask_sync() map parameter in a subsequent patch. > > > > What's the story with this patch? > > > Currently dio48e_handle_mask_sync() uses the map argument in its > > implementation. Once the map parameter is removed, the current > > implementation of dio48e_handle_mask_sync() will no longer build, so we > > must adjust the implementation to no longer depend on map. > > I mean what's the story with getting this patch applied? It doesn't > seem to have been reviewed... I'm sorry, I forgot to add Linus' tag from v2 [0]. Linus, would you confirm you're still okay with this patch? William Breathitt Gray [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CACRpkdYFSu3DAY4+EeoRk4cTkypgWg1C=UgforDO7mT96f0GDQ@mail.gmail.com/
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:35 PM William Breathitt Gray <william.gray@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:15:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:36:23PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:23:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:50:15AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > > > > A private data structure struct dio48e_gpio is introduced to facilitate > > > > > passage of the regmap and IRQ mask state for the device to the callback > > > > > dio48e_handle_mask_sync(). This is in preparation for the removal of the > > > > > handle_mask_sync() map parameter in a subsequent patch. > > > > > > What's the story with this patch? > > > > > Currently dio48e_handle_mask_sync() uses the map argument in its > > > implementation. Once the map parameter is removed, the current > > > implementation of dio48e_handle_mask_sync() will no longer build, so we > > > must adjust the implementation to no longer depend on map. > > > > I mean what's the story with getting this patch applied? It doesn't > > seem to have been reviewed... > > I'm sorry, I forgot to add Linus' tag from v2 [0]. Linus, would you > confirm you're still okay with this patch? Oh of course. Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Yours, Linus Walleij
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.