Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.112.32 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.112.32; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
From:   Akhil R <akhilrajeev@nvidia.com>
To:     <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
CC:     <akhilrajeev@nvidia.com>, <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, <kyarlagadda@nvidia.com>,
        <ldewangan@nvidia.com>, <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>, <mperttunen@nvidia.com>,
        <smangipudi@nvidia.com>, <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: tegra186: Add ACPI support
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 23:17:19 +0530
Message-ID: <1625075239-19120-1-git-send-email-akhilrajeev@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdkC4vcOnC37D4iDZs3g=2K=+iTsXZX=20CK2Og6WtgPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHp75VdkC4vcOnC37D4iDZs3g=2K=+iTsXZX=20CK2Og6WtgPA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2021 17:47:26.7463
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 63b02bca-6776-45a6-5f73-08d93bef1fec
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.32];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT056.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1201MB0260
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> > >What about doing like
> >
> >      gpio->secure = devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname(pdev, "security");
> > >      if (IS_ERR(gpio->secure))
> > >              gpio->secure = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > >      if (IS_ERR(gpio->secure))
> > >              return PTR_ERR(gpio->secure);
> > >
> > >and similar for gpio->base?
> >
> > Wouldn't this cause a redundant check if it had already succeeded in getting
> > the resource by name? Also, could it happen that if the device tree is
> > incorrect, then one of the resource is fetched by name and other by the index,
> > which I guess, would mess things up. Just my random thoughts, not sure if it
> > is valid enough.
> >
> > >Wouldn't the following be enough?
> > >
> > >-       gpio->intc.name = pdev->dev.of_node->name;
> > >+       gpio->intc.name = devm_kasprintf(&pdev->dev, "%pfw",
> > >dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev));
> > >+       if (!gpio->intc.name)
> > >+
> >
> > How about this way? I feel it would be right to add the OF functions conditionally.
> 
> Looks okay, although I have a question here.
> 
> +   if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
> 
> Do we really need this check at all? If the OF-node is NULL then it
> doesn't matter if other fields are filled or not, correct?
> 
> What you need is #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO (IIRC the name correctly).
> 
> > +       gpio->gpio.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > +       gpio->gpio.of_gpio_n_cells = 2;
> > +       gpio->gpio.of_xlate = tegra186_gpio_of_xlate;
> > +   }
> >
> > +   gpio->intc.name = gpio->soc->name;

Okay. It makes sense. Thanks Andy. I would make the changes and send out an updated patch.

--
Best Regards,
Akhil