On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 04:54:59PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Tue, 23 Aug 2022 17:47:38 +0300
> schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>:

Hi Andy,

Thanks for this new version. It is looking good to me.

> 
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:23:40PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
> > > Add GPIO support for Nuvoton NCT6116 chip. Nuvoton SuperIO chips are
> > > very similar to the ones from Fintek. In other subsystems they also
> > > share drivers and are called a family of drivers.
> > > 
> > > For the GPIO subsystem the only difference is that the direction
> > > bit is reversed and that there is only one data bit per pin. On the
> > > SuperIO level the logical device is another one.
> > > 
> > > On a chip level we do not have a manufacturer ID to check and also
> > > no revision.  
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > - * GPIO driver for Fintek Super-I/O F71869, F71869A, F71882,
> > > F71889 and F81866
> > > + * GPIO driver for Fintek and Nuvoton Super-I/O chips  
> > 
> > I'm not sure it's good idea to drop it from here. It means reader has
> > to get this info in a hard way.
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Let us see what others say. I wanted to keep this in line with what
> Kconfig says and the oneliner in the Kconfig was getting pretty
> longish. Hence i decided to shorten that. Other drivers also seem to
> not list all the possible chips in many places, it is all maint effort
> when a new chips is added and the list is in like 5 places.

I agree with you that we can drop this line. It was already incomplete
and the information is quite readable a few lines below in both the
define list and the chip enumeration.

> 
> > > +#define gpio_dir_invert(type)	((type) == nct6116d)
> > > +#define gpio_data_single(type)	((type) == nct6116d)  
> > 
> > What's prevents us to add a proper prefix to these? I don't like the
> > idea of them having "gpio" prefix.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > +		pr_info(DRVNAME ": Unsupported device 0x%04x\n",
> > > devid);
> > > +			pr_debug(DRVNAME ": Not a Fintek device at
> > > 0x%08x\n", addr);
> > > +	pr_info(DRVNAME ": Found %s at %#x\n",
> > > +		pr_info(DRVNAME ":   revision %d\n",  
> > 
> > Can we, please, utilize pr_fmt()?
> > 
> > > +			(int)superio_inb(addr,
> > > SIO_FINTEK_DEVREV));  
> > 
> > Explicit casting in printf() means wrong specifier in 99% of cases.
> > 
> 
> For all the other comments i will wait for a second opinion. I
> specifically did not change existing code for more than the functional
> changes needed. And a bit of checkpatch.pl fixing.
> Beautification could be done on the way but would only cause
> inconsistency. That driver is what it is, if someone wants to overhaul
> the style ... that should be another patch. One likely not coming from
> me.

About the int cast, I think you can drop it while you are updating
this line. It is unneeded.

I have no opinion on the other comments and I am OK with the rest of the
patch.

Simon