diff mbox series

[v3,07/11] gpiolib: replace find_chip_by_name() with gpio_device_find_by_label()

Message ID 20230915150327.81918-8-brgl@bgdev.pl
State Superseded
Headers show
Series gpiolib: work towards removing gpiochip_find() | expand

Commit Message

Bartosz Golaszewski Sept. 15, 2023, 3:03 p.m. UTC 
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>

Remove all remaining uses of find_chip_by_name() (and subsequently:
gpiochip_find()) from gpiolib.c and use the new
gpio_device_find_by_label() instead.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 33 ++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

Comments

Bartosz Golaszewski Sept. 18, 2023, 8:03 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:23 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 05:03:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> >
> > Remove all remaining uses of find_chip_by_name() (and subsequently:
> > gpiochip_find()) from gpiolib.c and use the new
> > gpio_device_find_by_label() instead.
>
> ...
>
> > -static int gpiochip_match_name(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data)
> > -{
> > -     const char *name = data;
> > -
> > -     return !strcmp(gc->label, name);
>
> And this we had no check for the label being NULL...
>

Yeah, it was wrong. But maybe all kernel users already do assign it in
which case we should be safe just adding a check in
gpiochip_add_data_with_key() that would return EINVAL if they don't.

> ...
>
> >       for (p = &table->table[0]; p->key; p++) {
> > +             struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
>
> > +             gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(p->key);
> > +             if (!gdev) {
>
> I haven't got the fix for gpio-sim, shouldn't we have the same here, i.e.
> definition being done together with the assignment when __free() is in use?
>

It should but I only got yelled at by Linus under the gpio-sim patch
after I sent this one.

Bart

> >               }
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
Linus Walleij Sept. 20, 2023, 9:01 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:03 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:23 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> > >       for (p = &table->table[0]; p->key; p++) {
> > > +             struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
> >
> > > +             gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(p->key);
> > > +             if (!gdev) {
> >
> > I haven't got the fix for gpio-sim, shouldn't we have the same here, i.e.
> > definition being done together with the assignment when __free() is in use?
>
> It should but I only got yelled at by Linus under the gpio-sim patch
> after I sent this one.

That happens, it's all new.
I guess ideally we should patch checkpatch to just moan about
this, I wonder how hard that could be (I've only patched it once in
my life...)

Yours,
Linus Walleij
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index e26cbd10a246..4c734bfe6d32 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1145,18 +1145,6 @@  struct gpio_device *gpio_device_find_by_label(const char *label)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpio_device_find_by_label);
 
-static int gpiochip_match_name(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data)
-{
-	const char *name = data;
-
-	return !strcmp(gc->label, name);
-}
-
-static struct gpio_chip *find_chip_by_name(const char *name)
-{
-	return gpiochip_find((void *)name, gpiochip_match_name);
-}
-
 /**
  * gpio_device_get() - Increase the reference count of this GPIO device
  * @gdev: GPIO device to increase the refcount for
@@ -3908,21 +3896,22 @@  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiod_remove_lookup_table);
  */
 void gpiod_add_hogs(struct gpiod_hog *hogs)
 {
-	struct gpio_chip *gc;
 	struct gpiod_hog *hog;
 
 	mutex_lock(&gpio_machine_hogs_mutex);
 
 	for (hog = &hogs[0]; hog->chip_label; hog++) {
+		struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
+
 		list_add_tail(&hog->list, &gpio_machine_hogs);
 
 		/*
 		 * The chip may have been registered earlier, so check if it
 		 * exists and, if so, try to hog the line now.
 		 */
-		gc = find_chip_by_name(hog->chip_label);
-		if (gc)
-			gpiochip_machine_hog(gc, hog);
+		gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(hog->chip_label);
+		if (gdev)
+			gpiochip_machine_hog(gpio_device_get_chip(gdev), hog);
 	}
 
 	mutex_unlock(&gpio_machine_hogs_mutex);
@@ -3977,13 +3966,14 @@  static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
 	struct gpio_desc *desc = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
 	struct gpiod_lookup_table *table;
 	struct gpiod_lookup *p;
+	struct gpio_chip *gc;
 
 	table = gpiod_find_lookup_table(dev);
 	if (!table)
 		return desc;
 
 	for (p = &table->table[0]; p->key; p++) {
-		struct gpio_chip *gc;
+		struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
 
 		/* idx must always match exactly */
 		if (p->idx != idx)
@@ -4005,9 +3995,8 @@  static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
 			return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
 		}
 
-		gc = find_chip_by_name(p->key);
-
-		if (!gc) {
+		gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(p->key);
+		if (!gdev) {
 			/*
 			 * As the lookup table indicates a chip with
 			 * p->key should exist, assume it may
@@ -4020,6 +4009,8 @@  static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
 			return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
 		}
 
+		gc = gpio_device_get_chip(gdev);
+
 		if (gc->ngpio <= p->chip_hwnum) {
 			dev_err(dev,
 				"requested GPIO %u (%u) is out of range [0..%u] for chip %s\n",
@@ -4028,7 +4019,7 @@  static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
 			return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 		}
 
-		desc = gpiochip_get_desc(gc, p->chip_hwnum);
+		desc = gpio_device_get_desc(gdev, p->chip_hwnum);
 		*flags = p->flags;
 
 		return desc;