Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] mfd: max77650: new core mfd driver

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>]

wt., 12 lut 2019 o 11:18 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:55 Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> napisał(a):
> > >
> > >  * The declaration of a superfluous struct
> > >  * 100 lines of additional/avoidable code
> > >  * Hacky hoop jumping trying to fudge VIRQs into resources
> > >  * Resources were designed for HWIRQs (unless a domain is present)
> > >  * Loads of additional/avoidable CPU cycles setting all this up
> >
> > While the above may be right, this one is negligible and you know it. :)
>
> You have nested for() loops.  You *are* wasting lots of cycles.
>
> > > Need I go on? :)
> > >
> > > Surely the fact that you are using both sides of an API
> > > (devm_regmap_init_i2c and regmap_irq_get_*) in the same driver, must
> > > set some alarm bells ringing?
> > >
> > > This whole HWIRQ setting, VIRQ getting, resource hacking is a mess.
> > >
> > > And for what?  To avoid passing IRQ data to a child driver?
> >
> > What do you propose? Should I go back to the approach in v1 and pass
> > the regmap_irq_chip_data to child drivers?
>
> I'm saying you should remove all of this hackery and pass IRQs as they
> are supposed to be passed (like everyone else does).
>

I'm not sure what you mean by "like everyone else does" - different
mfd drivers seem to be doing different things. Is a simple struct
containing virtual irq numbers passed to sub-drivers fine?

Bart