Re: [PATCH net-next v1 2/2] ieee802154: ca8210: Switch to using gpiod API
Miquel Raynal <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-wpan,org.kernel.vger.linux-gpio,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 03/03/2025 at 18:28:41 +02, Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > ... > >> > - * @gpio_reset: gpio number of ca8210 reset line >> > - * @gpio_irq: gpio number of ca8210 interrupt line >> > + * @reset_gpio: GPIO of ca8210 reset line >> >> What about "CA8210 Reset GPIO line"? Or Just "Reset GPIO line"? Or even >> "Reset GPIO descriptor" (whatever). >> >> > + * @irq_gpio: GPIO of ca8210 interrupt line >> >> Same > > Sure. > > [...] > >> > - int ret; >> > - struct ca8210_platform_data *pdata = spi->dev.platform_data; >> > + struct device *dev = &spi->dev; >> > + struct ca8210_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev); >> >> Can you either mention the additional cleanup that you do in the commit >> log or split it in a separate commit? (splitting is probably not >> necessary here given that most of the cleanup anyway is related to the >> actual changes. > > Do you mean the platform_data accessors? Yes. > I can actually split it to a separate > change as I had done some of that in the past in other drivers. Up to you, either way, as long as it is mentioned in the commit log, I'm happy. > > ... > >> > - ret = gpio_direction_output(pdata->gpio_reset, 1); >> > - if (ret < 0) { >> > - dev_crit( >> > - &spi->dev, >> > - "Reset GPIO %d did not set to output mode\n", >> > - pdata->gpio_reset >> > - ); >> > - } >> > - >> > - return ret; >> > + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pdata->reset_gpio); >> >> This is not a strong request, but in general I think it is preferred to return >> immediately, so this looks easier to understand: > > I used the same logic as in the original flow. That's true, and I understand your choice in the first place. But given that you're also doing a bit of cleanup, one more misc change feels okay. > >> + pdata->reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH); >> + if (IS_ERR(pdata->reset_gpio)) { >> + dev_crit(dev, "Reset GPIO did not set to output mode\n"); >> + return PTR_ERR(pdata->reset_pgio); >> + } >> + >> + return 0; > > Sure I can do this in v2. Great! > ... > >> Otherwise the rest lgtm. > > Thank you for the review!