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;
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:14:03 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Input <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] mfd: max77650: new core mfd driver
Message-ID: <20190212111403.GC20638@dell>
References: <20190205091237.6448-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20190205091237.6448-6-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20190212083642.GT20638@dell>
 <CAMRc=MderQf20_8aG4-otBkCv60FSNSSqV3NVALPkFL-MqmJbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190212095457.GA20638@dell>
 <CAMRc=MdyT7nMJ7dUTf6M3PvRdynaCurb_TftMyA4eCwzpR9fVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190212101835.GB20638@dell>
 <CAMRc=MfYeVbvY6O03xq4eLN9TVpAKWCAXPk0eP5LSBCU7VU9fA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=MfYeVbvY6O03xq4eLN9TVpAKWCAXPk0eP5LSBCU7VU9fA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

> wt., 12 lut 2019 o 11:18 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:55 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > >  * The declaration of a superfluous struct
> > > >  * 100 lines of additional/avoidable code
> > > >  * Hacky hoop jumping trying to fudge VIRQs into resources
> > > >  * Resources were designed for HWIRQs (unless a domain is present)
> > > >  * Loads of additional/avoidable CPU cycles setting all this up
> > >
> > > While the above may be right, this one is negligible and you know it. :)
> >
> > You have nested for() loops.  You *are* wasting lots of cycles.
> >
> > > > Need I go on? :)
> > > >
> > > > Surely the fact that you are using both sides of an API
> > > > (devm_regmap_init_i2c and regmap_irq_get_*) in the same driver, must
> > > > set some alarm bells ringing?
> > > >
> > > > This whole HWIRQ setting, VIRQ getting, resource hacking is a mess.
> > > >
> > > > And for what?  To avoid passing IRQ data to a child driver?
> > >
> > > What do you propose? Should I go back to the approach in v1 and pass
> > > the regmap_irq_chip_data to child drivers?
> >
> > I'm saying you should remove all of this hackery and pass IRQs as they
> > are supposed to be passed (like everyone else does).
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "like everyone else does" - different
> mfd drivers seem to be doing different things. Is a simple struct
> containing virtual irq numbers passed to sub-drivers fine?

How do you plan on deriving the VIRQs to place into the struct?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog