Hi David, hi Eric,
Le 29/12/2007, "David Brownell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
>From: eric miao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>This adds a new-style I2C driver with basic support for the sixteen
>bit PCA9539 GPIO expanders. These chips have multiple registers,
>push-pull output drivers, and (not supported by this patch) pin
>change interrupts.
>
>Board-specific code must provide "pca9539_platform_data" with each
>chip's "i2c_board_info". That provides the GPIO numbers to be used
>by that chip, and callbacks for board-specific setup/teardown logic.
>
>Derived from drivers/i2c/chips/pca9539.c (which has no current known
>users). This is faster and simpler; it uses 16-bit register access,
>and caches the OUTPUT and DIRECTION registers for fast access.
>
>Signed-off-by: eric miao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Signed-off-by: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>---
> drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 10 +
> drivers/gpio/Makefile | 1
> drivers/gpio/pca9539.c | 264 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/i2c/pca9539.h | 18 +++
> 4 files changed, 293 insertions(+)
Random comments:
>+static int pca9539_gpio_get_value(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned off)
>+{
>+ struct pca9539_chip *chip;
>+ uint16_t reg_val;
>+ int ret;
>+
>+ chip = container_of(gc, struct pca9539_chip, gpio_chip);
>+
>+ ret = pca9539_read_reg(chip, PCA9539_INPUT, ®_val);
>+ if (ret < 0) {
>+ /* NOTE: diagnostic already omitted; that's the
>+ * best we can do here.
>+ */
>+ return 0;
>+ }
I guess that you really mean "emitted" here, not "omitted"?
More importantly, I don't agree that it's the best we can do here.
Maybe it was already discussed before and there's a good reason to not
report errors from "get" functions at the gpio-core level, but I
can't see it. Whether a read error should be considered as "0" or
"1" (or neither) should be a decision left to the user of the GPIO
chip, rather than to each GPIO driver.
>+
>+ return (reg_val & (1u << off)) ? 1 : 0;
>+}
>+static int __devinit pca9539_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>+{
>+ (...)
>+ if (pdata->setup) {
>+ ret = pdata->setup(client, chip->gpio_chip.base,
>+ chip->gpio_chip.ngpio, pdata->context);
>+ if (ret < 0)
>+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "setup failed, %d\n", ret);
Should be at least dev_warn() and maybe even dev_err().
>+ }
>+ (...)
>+}
>+
>+static int pca9539_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>+{
>+ (...)
>+ if (pdata->teardown) {
>+ ret = pdata->teardown(client, chip->gpio_chip.base,
>+ chip->gpio_chip.ngpio, pdata->context);
>+ if (ret < 0)
>+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "teardown failed, %d\n", ret);
Same thing here.
>+ }
>+
>+ ret = gpiochip_remove(&chip->gpio_chip);
>+ if (ret) {
>+ dev_err(&client->dev, "failed remove gpio_chip\n");
This error message could certainly be reworded to sound better. Also, for
consistency you should include the value of "ret" in the message.
>+ return ret;
>+ }
>+
>+ kfree(chip);
>+ return 0;
>+}
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
