lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/5] counter: Internalize sysfs interface code
From
Date

>>>>>
>>>>> CPMAC ETHERNET DRIVER
>>>>> M: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/counter/104-quad-8.c b/drivers/counter/104-quad-8.c
>>>>> index 78766b6ec271..0f20920073d6 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/counter/104-quad-8.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/counter/104-quad-8.c
>>>>> @@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec quad8_channels[] = {
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> static int quad8_signal_read(struct counter_device *counter,
>>>>> - struct counter_signal *signal, enum counter_signal_value *val)
>>>>> + struct counter_signal *signal, u8 *val)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a fan of replacing enum types with u8 everywhere in this patch.
>>>> But if we have to for technical reasons (e.g. causes compiler error if
>>>> we don't) then it would be helpful to add comments giving the enum type
>>>> everywhere like this instance where u8 is actually an enum value.
>>>>
>>>> If we use u32 as the generic type for enums instead of u8, I think the
>>>> compiler will happlily let us use enum type and u32 interchangeably and
>>>> not complain.
>>>
>>> I switched to fixed-width types after the suggestion by David Laight:
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/3/159. I'll CC David Laight just in case he
>>> wants to chime in again.
>>>
>>> Enum types would be nice for making the valid values explicit, but there
>>> is one benefit I have appreciated from the move to fixed-width types:
>>> there has been a significant reduction of duplicate code; before, we had
>>> a different read function for each different enum type, but now we use a
>>> single function to handle them all.
>>
>> Yes, what I was trying to explain is that by using u32 instead of u8, I
>> think we can actually do both.
>>
>> The function pointers in struct counter_device *counter would use u32 as a
>> generic enum value in the declaration, but then the actual implementations
>> could still use the proper enum type.
>
> Oh, I see what you mean now. So for example:
>
> int (*signal_read)(struct counter_device *counter,
> struct counter_signal *signal, u8 *val)
>
> This will become instead:
>
> int (*signal_read)(struct counter_device *counter,
> struct counter_signal *signal, u32 *val)
>
> Then in the driver callback implementation we use the enum type we need:
>
> enum counter_signal_level signal_level = COUNTER_SIGNAL_HIGH;
> ...
> *val = signal_level;
>
> Is that what you have in mind?
>

Yes.

Additionally, if we have...


int (*x_write)(struct counter_device *counter,
..., u32 val)

We should be able to define the implementation as:

static int my_driver_x_write(struct counter_device *counter,
..., enum some_type val)
{
...
}

Not sure if it works if val is a pointer though. Little-
endian systems would probably be fine, but maybe not big-
endian combined with -fshort-enums compiler flag.


int (*x_read)(struct counter_device *counter,
..., u32 *val)


static int my_driver_x_read(struct counter_device *counter,
..., enum some_type *val)
{
...
}

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-11 00:48    [W:0.098 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site