Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] Documentation: Update the recommended pattern for GPIO irqchips

From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>, Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
	Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Basavaraj Natikar <Basavaraj.Natikar@amd.com>,
	Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-tegra <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] Documentation: Update the recommended pattern for GPIO irqchips
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:33:56 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve5tMyUdj-cYV0pzL4zvVitTwC_gGv50-ZHTETiiQSbeA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220405135444.199295-11-maz@kernel.org>

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:57 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Update the documentation to get rid of the per-gpio_irq_chip
> irq_chip structure, and give examples of the new pattern.

...

> +  static void my_gpio_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +  {
> +      struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(d);
> +
> +      /*
> +       * Perform any necessary action to mask the interrupt,
> +       * and then call into the core code to synchronise the
> +       * state.
> +       */
> +
> +      gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, d->hwirq);

(1)

> +  }
> +
> +  static void my_gpio_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +  {
> +      struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(d);

> +      gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, d->hwirq);

(2)

> +      /*
> +       * Perform any necessary action to unmask the interrupt,
> +       * after having called into the core code to synchronise
> +       * the state.
> +       */
> +  }

If (1) and (2) being the same is not a mistake (typo) it probably
needs additional explanation.

...

> +  static void my_gpio_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +  {
> +      struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(d);
> +
> +      /*
> +       * Perform any necessary action to mask the interrupt,
> +       * and then call into the core code to synchronise the
> +       * state.
> +       */

> +      gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, d->hwirq);

(3)

> +  }
> +
> +  static void my_gpio_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +  {
> +      struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(d);

> +      gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, d->hwirq);

(4)

> +      /*
> +       * Perform any necessary action to unmask the interrupt,
> +       * after having called into the core code to synchronise
> +       * the state.
> +       */
> +  }

Ditto for (3) & (4).

...

> +  static void my_gpio_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +  {
> +      struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(d);
> +
> +      /*
> +       * Perform any necessary action to mask the interrupt,
> +       * and then call into the core code to synchronise the
> +       * state.
> +       */
> +
> +      gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, d->hwirq);

(5)

> +      irq_mask_mask_parent(d);
> +  }
> +
> +  static void my_gpio_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +  {
> +      struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(d);

> +      gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, d->hwirq);

(6)

> +      /*
> +       * Perform any necessary action to unmask the interrupt,
> +       * after having called into the core code to synchronise
> +       * the state.
> +       */
> +
> +      irq_mask_unmask_parent(d);
> +  }

Ditto for (5) & (6).

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko