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

Bart

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-12 11:25    [W:0.058 / U:22.852 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site