Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: assign chip owner to dev->driver->owner if not set

From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
	"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpiolib: assign chip owner to dev->driver->owner if not set
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:53:17 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A79B2D.2080900@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdbiLmx6EuL8o1=RgrbMMfagbXHPK2VjrkNons6E=mm8bA@mail.gmail.com>

On 07/16/2015 02:25 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Grygorii Strashko
>> <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Assign GPIO chip owner field to chip->dev->driver->owner if it was not
>>> configured by GPIO driver.
>>>
>>> Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
>>
>> Patch applied with Alex' review tag.
>>
>>>   There is also one positive additional side effect:
>>>   lines like below can be removed from a lot of GPIO
>>>   drivers
>>>          rdc321x_gpio_dev->chip.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>>
>> Yes let's do this :)
>
> Or actually, I have had some second thought to why gpio_chip
> is duplicating struct members from struct device at all.
>
> Why should it even have "owner" and "of_node"?
>
> Should we not just rewrite this code to follow the struct device *dev
> pointer in gpio_chip and use "owner" and "of_node" from there?
>

Seems not all drivers implemented using Dev/Driver approach,
so they don't have dev at all ;)

gpio-samsung.c for example (non-DT driver).

-- 
regards,
-grygorii