Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdYjz6f2wBXsTL1kf5z-jcM68sMhtmkdgJM+TiPZb=gww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2834309f69a1ec37b84a33f153a3d0b90336bcc6.1517453568.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
 <62ceed73b65399099ccd76fe6b7331bcd253b027.1517453569.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
 <CAHp75VdYjz6f2wBXsTL1kf5z-jcM68sMhtmkdgJM+TiPZb=gww@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:32:55 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMz4ku+9dQ-d_E0Zf0iwjLgZ4hkEAunUhqGm_+jFQrZ6O4W0fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Spreadtrum SC9860 platform
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 1 February 2018 at 23:31, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> wrote:
>> The Spreadtrum SC9860 platform GPIO controller contains 16 groups and
>> each group contains 16 GPIOs. Each GPIO can set input/output and has
>> the interrupt capability.
>
> Just noticed couple of more improvements you can do.
>
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 1);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_edge_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 0);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_edge_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 1);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_edge_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 1);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 1);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_level_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IS, 1);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IBE, 0);
>> +               sprd_gpio_update(chip, offset, SPRD_GPIO_IEV, 0);
>> +               irq_set_handler_locked(data, handle_level_irq);
>> +               break;
>> +       default:
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>
> I guess you can use fallthrough and reduce some lines, but I have no
> strong opinion which will look better.

Um, we need keep the sequence of updating registers and each irq type
has different register updating. So I think current code can make
things clear.

>
>> +       res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> +       sprd_gpio->base = devm_ioremap_nocache(&pdev->dev, res->start,
>> +                                              resource_size(res));
>
> Didn't notice before, why not to simple call devm_ioremap_resource() ?

Ah, you are correct, I missed devm_ioremap_resource(). Will change in
next version. Thanks.

-- 
Baolin.wang
Best Regards