Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] gpio: sim: new testing module

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 10:17:36AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > Implement a new, modern GPIO testing module controlled by configfs
> > attributes instead of module parameters. The goal of this driver is
> > to provide a replacement for gpio-mockup that will be easily extensible
> > with new features and doesn't require reloading the module to change
> > the setup.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
> > [Andy: Initialize attribute allocated on the heap]
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > [Colin: Fix dereference of free'd pointer config]
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>
> Some nit-picks below, up to you to address.
>
> ...
>
> > +     ret = gpio_sim_setup_sysfs(chip);
> > +     if (ret)
> > +             return ret;
> > +
> > +     return 0;
>
> return gpio_sim_...(chip); ?
>

Sure, can do.

> ...
>
> > +
>
> Redundant empty line.
>
> > +CONFIGFS_ATTR_RO(gpio_sim_config_, dev_name);
>
> ...
>
> > +
>
> Ditto.
>
> > +CONFIGFS_ATTR_RO(gpio_sim_config_, chip_name);
>
> ...
>
> > +
>
> Ditto.
>
> > +CONFIGFS_ATTR(gpio_sim_config_, label);
>
> ...
>
> > +
>
> Ditto.
>
> > +CONFIGFS_ATTR(gpio_sim_config_, num_lines);
>
> ...
>
> > +
>
> Ditto.
>
> > +CONFIGFS_ATTR(gpio_sim_config_, line_names);
>

These are on purpose - there's the store and show function and putting
it next to only one is misleading IMO.

> ...
>
> > +     fwnode = fwnode_create_software_node(properties, NULL);
> > +     if (IS_ERR(fwnode))
> > +             return PTR_ERR(fwnode);
>
>
> > +     fwnode = dev_fwnode(&config->pdev->dev);
> > +     platform_device_unregister(config->pdev);
> > +     fwnode_remove_software_node(fwnode);
>
> This seems correct, thank you for modifying the code.
>
> ...
>
> > +     config->pdev = NULL;
> > +     mutex_unlock(&config->lock);
>
> mutex_destroy() ?
> Or is it done in the upper level?
>

It's done in the release callback.

Bart

> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>