Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231212054253.50094-1-warthog618@gmail.com> <20231212054253.50094-2-warthog618@gmail.com>
 <ZXm3rayrcvfO1t1Z@smile.fi.intel.com> <ZXm_WsIpgIyOUNHt@rigel>
 <CAMRc=Mfri8K4ZqcHb_eQY6gi+q_-uBZc2wiMrrb-+a7Tric3FA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZXnU3tMYCc2Rw8Qv@rigel> <ZXnX8jPHxRLW8lhi@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Mfj_4YvQVP=UWkULBwJniDDjapttU+qSgqfN5ZWNgikKw@mail.gmail.com> <ZXnb-ks_noYLWZZ2@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZXnb-ks_noYLWZZ2@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 20:03:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MfaHKKKNkXW0L1FPjCH4VvG22Vn9q8z9tupZCtCEKZU2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from
 struct gpio_desc
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
Cc:     Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:29=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org> w=
rote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 05:15:38PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:12=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.or=
g> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:59:26PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote=
:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:27=E2=80=AFPM Kent Gibson <warthog618@g=
mail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 03:54:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote=
:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 01:42:50PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > > > +static struct supinfo supinfo;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why supinfo should be a struct to begin with? Seems to me as =
an unneeded
> > > > > > > complication.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should keep it as a struct but defined the following w=
ay:
> > > > >
> > > > > struct {
> > > > >     spinlock_t lock;
> > > > >     struct rb_root tree;
> > > > > } supinfo;
> > > >
> > > > That is what I meant be merging the struct definition with the vari=
able
> > > > definition.  Or is there some other way to completely do away with =
the
> > > > struct that I'm missing?
> > >
> > > Look at the top of gpiolib.c:
> > >
> > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_lookup_lock);
> > > static LIST_HEAD(gpio_lookup_list);
> > >
> > > In the similar way you can simply do
> > >
> > > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(gpio_sup_lock);
> > > static struct rb_root gpio_sup_tree;
> >
> > The fact that this has been like this, doesn't mean it's the only
> > right way. IMO putting these into the same structure makes logical
> > sense.
>
> I disagree on the struct like this on the grounds:
> - it's global
> - it's one time use
> - it adds complications for no benefit
> - it makes code uglier and longer
>

It boils down to supinfo.lock vs supinfo_lock. I do prefer the former
but it's a weak opinion, I won't die on that hill.

Bart

> What we probably want to have is a singleton objects in C language or at =
least
> inside Linux kernel project. But I'm not sure it's feasible.
>
> > > > > > Yeah, that is a hangover from an earlier iteration where supinf=
o was
> > > > > > contained in other object rather than being a global.
> > > > > > Could merge the struct definition into the variable now.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>