| Message ID | 1449667312-32244-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> writes: > This makes the driver use the data pointer added to the gpio_chip > to store a pointer to the state container instead of relying on > container_of(). > > Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> > Cc: Daniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> This conflicts with the earlier serie in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/28/136 which revamps the gpio_chip_base() anyway. The patch is perfectly fine, and yet it's the opportunity to ask a review of the other serie before other patches make me respin the serie, isn't it ? Oh, and : Acked-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> Cheers. -- Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> wrote: > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> writes: > >> This makes the driver use the data pointer added to the gpio_chip >> to store a pointer to the state container instead of relying on >> container_of(). >> >> Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> >> Cc: Daniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > This conflicts with the earlier serie in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/28/136 > which revamps the gpio_chip_base() anyway. I have already fixed that, I think. > The patch is perfectly fine, and yet it's the opportunity to ask a review of the > other serie before other patches make me respin the serie, isn't it ? I merged it and rebased my patch. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> writes: >> The patch is perfectly fine, and yet it's the opportunity to ask a review of the >> other serie before other patches make me respin the serie, isn't it ? > > I merged it and rebased my patch. Excellent, thanks. Cheers.
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pxa.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pxa.c index bce99182578b..1f574a9f88fe 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pxa.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pxa.c @@ -153,7 +153,8 @@ static struct pxa_gpio_id pxa1928_id = { static inline void __iomem *gpio_chip_base(struct gpio_chip *c) { - return container_of(c, struct pxa_gpio_chip, chip)->regbase; + struct pxa_gpio_chip *p = gpiochip_get_data(c); + return p->regbase; } static inline struct pxa_gpio_chip *gpio_to_pxachip(unsigned gpio) @@ -334,7 +335,7 @@ static int pxa_init_gpio_chip(int gpio_end, /* number of GPIOs on last bank may be less than 32 */ c->ngpio = (gpio + 31 > gpio_end) ? (gpio_end - gpio + 1) : 32; - gpiochip_add(c); + gpiochip_add_data(c, &chips[i]); } pxa_gpio_chips = chips; return 0;
This makes the driver use the data pointer added to the gpio_chip to store a pointer to the state container instead of relying on container_of(). Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> Cc: Daniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-pxa.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)