| Message ID | 20220903-gpiod_get_from_of_node-remove-v1-10-b29adfb27a6c@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Get rid of [devm_]gpiod_get_from_of_node() public APIs | expand |
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to stop exporting OF-specific devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node() > so that gpiolib can be cleaned a bit, so let's switch to the generic > fwnode property API. > > While at it switch the rest of the calls to read properties in it, switch > bd9576_wdt_probe() to the generic device property API as well. ... > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; struct device *parent = dev->parent; can make your code slightly neater. ... > + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms"); > + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL) > + return count; > + > + if (count > 0) { > + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin)) > + return -EINVAL; Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0). ... > - if (ret == 1) > - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; > + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent, > + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms", > + hw_margin, count); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly. > - if (ret == 2) { > - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; > - hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; > + if (count == 1) > + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; > + > + if (count == 2) { > + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; > + hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; > + } > }
On 9/5/22 04:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I would like to stop exporting OF-specific devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node() >> so that gpiolib can be cleaned a bit, so let's switch to the generic >> fwnode property API. >> >> While at it switch the rest of the calls to read properties in > > it, switch > >> bd9576_wdt_probe() to the generic device property API as well. > > ... > >> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > struct device *parent = dev->parent; > > can make your code slightly neater. > > ... > >> + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms"); >> + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL) >> + return count; >> + >> + if (count > 0) { > >> + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin)) >> + return -EINVAL; > > Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0). > Two checks will always be needed, so I don't entirely see how that would be better. > ... > >> - if (ret == 1) >> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; > >> + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent, >> + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms", >> + hw_margin, count); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + return ret; > > So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly. > Sorry, I don't understand this comment. Guenter >> - if (ret == 2) { >> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; >> - hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; >> + if (count == 1) >> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; >> + >> + if (count == 2) { >> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; >> + hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; >> + } >> } >
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 6:13 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > On 9/5/22 04:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov > > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: ... > >> + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms"); > >> + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL) > >> + return count; > >> + > >> + if (count > 0) { > > > >> + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin)) > >> + return -EINVAL; > > > > Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0). > > Two checks will always be needed, so I don't entirely see > how that would be better. But not nested. That's my point: if (count > ARRAY_SIZE()) return ... if (count > 0) ... > >> - if (ret == 1) > >> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; > > > >> + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent, > >> + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms", > >> + hw_margin, count); > >> + if (ret < 0) > >> + return ret; > > > > So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly. > > > Sorry, I don't understand this comment. if (count > 0) { ret = device_property_read_u32_array(...); ... } if (count == 1) ... if (count == 2) ... But here it might be better to have the nested conditionals. > >> - if (ret == 2) { > >> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; > >> - hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; > >> + if (count == 1) > >> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; > >> + > >> + if (count == 2) { > >> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; > >> + hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; > >> + } > >> }
On 9/5/22 08:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 6:13 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >> On 9/5/22 04:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov >>> <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > >>>> + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms"); >>>> + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL) >>>> + return count; >>>> + >>>> + if (count > 0) { >>> >>>> + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin)) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>> >>> Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0). >> >> Two checks will always be needed, so I don't entirely see >> how that would be better. > > But not nested. That's my point: > > if (count > ARRAY_SIZE()) > return ... > if (count > 0) > ... > The old code has either 1 or two checks if there is no error. Your suggested code has always two checks. I don't see how that is an improvement. >>>> - if (ret == 1) >>>> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; >>> >>>> + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent, >>>> + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms", >>>> + hw_margin, count); >>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>> + return ret; >>> >>> So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly. >>> >> Sorry, I don't understand this comment. > > if (count > 0) { > ret = device_property_read_u32_array(...); > ... > } > if (count == 1) > ... > if (count == 2) > ... > > But here it might be better to have the nested conditionals. > We know that count is either 1 or 2 here, so strictly speaking if (count == 1) { } else { } would be sufficient. On the other side, that depends on ARRAY_SIZE() being exactly 2, so if (count == 1) { } else if (count == 2) { } would also make sense. Either way is fine with me. I'll leave it up to Dmitry to decide what he wants to do. Thanks, Guenter >>>> - if (ret == 2) { >>>> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; >>>> - hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; >>>> + if (count == 1) >>>> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; >>>> + >>>> + if (count == 2) { >>>> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; >>>> + hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; >>>> + } >>>> } >
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 08:49:58AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 9/5/22 08:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 6:13 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > > On 9/5/22 04:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov > > > > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms"); > > > > > + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL) > > > > > + return count; > > > > > + > > > > > + if (count > 0) { > > > > > > > > > + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin)) > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0). > > > > > Two checks will always be needed, so I don't entirely see > > > how that would be better. > > > > But not nested. That's my point: > > > > if (count > ARRAY_SIZE()) > > return ... > > if (count > 0) > > ... > > > > The old code has either 1 or two checks if there is no error. > Your suggested code has always two checks. I don't see how that > is an improvement. > > > > > > - if (ret == 1) > > > > > - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; > > > > > > > > > + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent, > > > > > + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms", > > > > > + hw_margin, count); > > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly. > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand this comment. > > > > if (count > 0) { > > ret = device_property_read_u32_array(...); > > ... > > } > > if (count == 1) > > ... > > if (count == 2) > > ... > > > > But here it might be better to have the nested conditionals. > > > > We know that count is either 1 or 2 here, so strictly speaking > if (count == 1) { > } else { > } > would be sufficient. On the other side, that depends on ARRAY_SIZE() being > exactly 2, so > if (count == 1) { > } else if (count == 2) { > } > would also make sense. Either way is fine with me. I'll leave it up > to Dmitry to decide what he wants to do. My goal is to drop usage of devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(), beyond that I do not have strong preferences either way really. It is probing code, so performance is not critical, but I'm obviously satisfied with how the code looks now, or I would not have sent it. Thanks.
On 9/5/22 12:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: [ ... ] >> We know that count is either 1 or 2 here, so strictly speaking >> if (count == 1) { >> } else { >> } >> would be sufficient. On the other side, that depends on ARRAY_SIZE() being >> exactly 2, so >> if (count == 1) { >> } else if (count == 2) { >> } >> would also make sense. Either way is fine with me. I'll leave it up >> to Dmitry to decide what he wants to do. > > My goal is to drop usage of devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(), beyond that I > do not have strong preferences either way really. It is probing code, so > performance is not critical, but I'm obviously satisfied with how the > code looks now, or I would not have sent it. > Good point. Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 03:09:05PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 9/5/22 12:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > [ ... ] > > > We know that count is either 1 or 2 here, so strictly speaking > > > if (count == 1) { > > > } else { > > > } > > > would be sufficient. On the other side, that depends on ARRAY_SIZE() being > > > exactly 2, so > > > if (count == 1) { > > > } else if (count == 2) { > > > } > > > would also make sense. Either way is fine with me. I'll leave it up > > > to Dmitry to decide what he wants to do. > > > > My goal is to drop usage of devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(), beyond that I > > do not have strong preferences either way really. It is probing code, so > > performance is not critical, but I'm obviously satisfied with how the > > code looks now, or I would not have sent it. > > > > Good point. > > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> Guenter, individual patches are going through maintainer's trees, will you take this one? Thanks.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 8:31 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to stop exporting OF-specific devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node() > so that gpiolib can be cleaned a bit, so let's switch to the generic > fwnode property API. > > While at it switch the rest of the calls to read properties in > bd9576_wdt_probe() to the generic device property API as well. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/bd9576_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/bd9576_wdt.c index 0b6999f3b6e8..4a20e07fbb69 100644 --- a/drivers/watchdog/bd9576_wdt.c +++ b/drivers/watchdog/bd9576_wdt.c @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h> #include <linux/mfd/rohm-bd957x.h> #include <linux/module.h> -#include <linux/of.h> #include <linux/platform_device.h> +#include <linux/property.h> #include <linux/regmap.h> #include <linux/watchdog.h> @@ -202,10 +202,10 @@ static int bd957x_set_wdt_mode(struct bd9576_wdt_priv *priv, int hw_margin, static int bd9576_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; - struct device_node *np = dev->parent->of_node; struct bd9576_wdt_priv *priv; u32 hw_margin[2]; u32 hw_margin_max = BD957X_WDT_DEFAULT_MARGIN, hw_margin_min = 0; + int count; int ret; priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); @@ -221,40 +221,51 @@ static int bd9576_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return -ENODEV; } - priv->gpiod_en = devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(dev, dev->parent->of_node, - "rohm,watchdog-enable-gpios", - 0, GPIOD_OUT_LOW, - "watchdog-enable"); + priv->gpiod_en = devm_fwnode_gpiod_get(dev, dev_fwnode(dev->parent), + "rohm,watchdog-enable", + GPIOD_OUT_LOW, + "watchdog-enable"); if (IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_en)) return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->gpiod_en), "getting watchdog-enable GPIO failed\n"); - priv->gpiod_ping = devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(dev, dev->parent->of_node, - "rohm,watchdog-ping-gpios", - 0, GPIOD_OUT_LOW, - "watchdog-ping"); + priv->gpiod_ping = devm_fwnode_gpiod_get(dev, dev_fwnode(dev->parent), + "rohm,watchdog-ping", + GPIOD_OUT_LOW, + "watchdog-ping"); if (IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_ping)) return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->gpiod_ping), "getting watchdog-ping GPIO failed\n"); - ret = of_property_read_variable_u32_array(np, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms", - &hw_margin[0], 1, 2); - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) - return ret; + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms"); + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL) + return count; + + if (count > 0) { + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin)) + return -EINVAL; - if (ret == 1) - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent, + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms", + hw_margin, count); + if (ret < 0) + return ret; - if (ret == 2) { - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; - hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; + if (count == 1) + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0]; + + if (count == 2) { + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1]; + hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0]; + } } ret = bd957x_set_wdt_mode(priv, hw_margin_max, hw_margin_min); if (ret) return ret; - priv->always_running = of_property_read_bool(np, "always-running"); + priv->always_running = device_property_read_bool(dev->parent, + "always-running"); watchdog_set_drvdata(&priv->wdd, priv);
I would like to stop exporting OF-specific devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node() so that gpiolib can be cleaned a bit, so let's switch to the generic fwnode property API. While at it switch the rest of the calls to read properties in bd9576_wdt_probe() to the generic device property API as well. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>