Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Dec 2021 00:02:07 +0100 | From | Jonathan Neuschäfer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] pinctrl: nuvoton: Add driver for WPCM450 |
| |
On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:14:38PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:58 PM Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 01:24:18PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021, Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net> > > > wrote: > > ... > > > > > + ours = ((1UL << gpio->num_irqs) - 1) << gpio->first_irq_bit; > > > > > > BIT() > > > > I'll use it, but in this case, I think it doesn't simplify much the > > whole expression all that much. > > It is still better to use in my opinion.
Ok.
> > > Is there perhaps a macro that > > constructs a continuous bitmask of N bits, perhaps additionally > > left-shifted by M bits? > > > Maybe somewhere in the bitmap_* API... > > Maybe, I dunno since I haven't clearly got this code anyway, so up to > you to check and see what to do about it.
Right, I'll evaluate my options and come up with something.
> ... > > > > > + struct fwnode_handle *np; > > > > > > Either be fully OF, or don’t name ‘np' here. We usually use fwnode or > > > ‘child’ in this case. > > > > Ah, I thought "np" (= node pointer) was still appropriate because I'm > > dealing with firmware _nodes_. My intention was indeed to switch fully > > to the fwnode API. > > Just a convention "de facto".
Ok, I'll change it.
> > > > + ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(&gpio->gc, dev_name(pctrl->dev), > > > > + 0, bank->base, bank->length); > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Failed to add pin range for GPIO bank %u\n", reg); > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > > > Please move it to the corresponding callback. > > > > What's the corresponding callback? > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/gpio/driver.h#L400
Thanks.
Best regards, Jonathan Neuschäfer [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |