| Message ID | 20230801170318.82682-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Extend device_get_match_data() to struct bus_type | expand |
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 06:03:18PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > Add i2c_device_get_match_data() callback to struct bus_type(). > > While at it, introduced i2c_get_match_data_helper() to avoid code > duplication with i2c_get_match_data(). Have you used --patience when prepared the patch for sending? ... > -const void *i2c_get_match_data(const struct i2c_client *client) > +static const void *i2c_get_match_data_helper(const struct i2c_driver *driver, > + const struct i2c_client *client) > { > - struct i2c_driver *driver = to_i2c_driver(client->dev.driver); Does it make sense to remove and add an additional parameter? In one case it's a copy, in another it probably the same, just hidden in the code. > const struct i2c_device_id *match; > + > + match = i2c_match_id(driver->id_table, client); > + if (!match) > + return NULL; > + > + return (const void *)match->driver_data; > +} > + > +static const void *i2c_device_get_match_data(const struct device *dev) > +{ > + /* TODO: use i2c_verify_client() when it accepts const pointer */ > + const struct i2c_client *client = (dev->type == &i2c_client_type) ? > + to_i2c_client(dev) : NULL; > const void *data; > + if (!dev->driver) > + return NULL; When can this be true? > + data = i2c_get_match_data_helper(to_i2c_driver(dev->driver), client); > + if (data) > + return data; > > - data = (const void *)match->driver_data; > + if (dev->driver->of_match_table) { > + const struct of_device_id *match; > + > + match = i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(dev->driver->of_match_table, > + (struct i2c_client *)client); > + if (match) > + data = match->data; > } > > return data; > } ... > -static const struct of_device_id* > +const struct of_device_id* While here, add a missing space after of_device_id. ... > +const struct of_device_id* Ditto. Or use below (weird) style in case it occurs more often than usual one. > +i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(const struct of_device_id *matches, > + struct i2c_client *client); > + > const struct of_device_id > *i2c_of_match_device(const struct of_device_id *matches, > struct i2c_client *client); ... > +static inline const struct of_device_id > +*i2c_of_match_device(const struct of_device_id *matches, As per above. > + struct i2c_client *client) > +{ > + return NULL; > +}
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:28:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 06:03:18PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > Add i2c_device_get_match_data() callback to struct bus_type(). > > > > While at it, introduced i2c_get_match_data_helper() to avoid code > > duplication with i2c_get_match_data(). > > Have you used --patience when prepared the patch for sending? > > ... > > > -const void *i2c_get_match_data(const struct i2c_client *client) > > +static const void *i2c_get_match_data_helper(const struct i2c_driver *driver, > > + const struct i2c_client *client) > > { > > > - struct i2c_driver *driver = to_i2c_driver(client->dev.driver); > > Does it make sense to remove and add an additional parameter? In one case it's > a copy, in another it probably the same, just hidden in the code. > > > const struct i2c_device_id *match; > > + > > + match = i2c_match_id(driver->id_table, client); > > + if (!match) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + return (const void *)match->driver_data; > > +} > > + > > +static const void *i2c_device_get_match_data(const struct device *dev) > > +{ > > + /* TODO: use i2c_verify_client() when it accepts const pointer */ > > + const struct i2c_client *client = (dev->type == &i2c_client_type) ? > > + to_i2c_client(dev) : NULL; > > const void *data; > > > + if (!dev->driver) > > + return NULL; > > When can this be true? It is not guaranteed that the function is always called on a device bound to a driver (even though we normally expect this to be the case). > > > + data = i2c_get_match_data_helper(to_i2c_driver(dev->driver), client); > > + if (data) > > + return data; > > > > - data = (const void *)match->driver_data; > > + if (dev->driver->of_match_table) { > > + const struct of_device_id *match; > > + > > + match = i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(dev->driver->of_match_table, > > + (struct i2c_client *)client); Can we make i2c_of_match_device_sysfs() take a const pointer to a client? Casting away constness is something that we should avoid. > > + if (match) > > + data = match->data; > > } > > > > return data; > > } > > ... > > > -static const struct of_device_id* > > +const struct of_device_id* > > While here, add a missing space after of_device_id. > > ... > > > +const struct of_device_id* > > Ditto. > > Or use below (weird) style in case it occurs more often than usual one. > > > +i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(const struct of_device_id *matches, > > + struct i2c_client *client); > > + > > const struct of_device_id > > *i2c_of_match_device(const struct of_device_id *matches, > > struct i2c_client *client); > > ... > > > +static inline const struct of_device_id > > +*i2c_of_match_device(const struct of_device_id *matches, > > As per above. Was it supposed to be i2c_of_match_device_sysfs()? Also, this should be in drivers/i2c/i2c-core.h, not in public header. Thanks.
Hi Andy Shevchenko, Thanks for the feedback. > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: Add i2c_device_get_match_data() > callback > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 06:03:18PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > Add i2c_device_get_match_data() callback to struct bus_type(). > > > > While at it, introduced i2c_get_match_data_helper() to avoid code > > duplication with i2c_get_match_data(). > > Have you used --patience when prepared the patch for sending? Normally, I use "git format-patch -n --subject-prefix="PATCH vY" --cover-letter" for preparing patch. I see there is a difference with "git format-patch -n --patience *". I will send this patch series with --patience option. > > ... > > > -const void *i2c_get_match_data(const struct i2c_client *client) > > +static const void *i2c_get_match_data_helper(const struct i2c_driver > *driver, > > + const struct i2c_client *client) > > { > > > - struct i2c_driver *driver = to_i2c_driver(client->dev.driver); > > Does it make sense to remove and add an additional parameter? In one > case it's a copy, in another it probably the same, just hidden in the > code. Ok, you mean add the below check in i2c_device_get_match_data() and drop *driver parameter from i2c_get_match_data_helper(). if (!client || !dev->driver) return NULL; > > > const struct i2c_device_id *match; > > + > > + match = i2c_match_id(driver->id_table, client); > > + if (!match) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + return (const void *)match->driver_data; } > > + > > +static const void *i2c_device_get_match_data(const struct device > > +*dev) { > > + /* TODO: use i2c_verify_client() when it accepts const pointer */ > > + const struct i2c_client *client = (dev->type == > &i2c_client_type) ? > > + to_i2c_client(dev) : NULL; > > const void *data; > > > + if (!dev->driver) > > + return NULL; > > When can this be true? > > > + data = i2c_get_match_data_helper(to_i2c_driver(dev->driver), > client); > > + if (data) > > + return data; > > > > - data = (const void *)match->driver_data; > > + if (dev->driver->of_match_table) { > > + const struct of_device_id *match; > > + > > + match = i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(dev->driver- > >of_match_table, > > + (struct i2c_client *)client); > > + if (match) > > + data = match->data; > > } > > > > return data; > > } > > ... > > > -static const struct of_device_id* > > +const struct of_device_id* > > While here, add a missing space after of_device_id. OK. > > ... > > > +const struct of_device_id* > > Ditto. > > Or use below (weird) style in case it occurs more often than usual one. It is one of case. So, I will use space after of_device_id. > > > +i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(const struct of_device_id *matches, > > + struct i2c_client *client); > > + > > const struct of_device_id > > *i2c_of_match_device(const struct of_device_id *matches, > > struct i2c_client *client); > > ... > > > +static inline const struct of_device_id *i2c_of_match_device(const > > +struct of_device_id *matches, > > As per above. OK, This will be moved to i2c-core.h. Cheers, Biju > > > + struct i2c_client *client) > > +{ > > + return NULL; > > +} > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko >
Hi Dmitry Torokhov, Thanks for the feedback. > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: Add i2c_device_get_match_data() > callback > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:28:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 06:03:18PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > > Add i2c_device_get_match_data() callback to struct bus_type(). > > > > > > While at it, introduced i2c_get_match_data_helper() to avoid code > > > duplication with i2c_get_match_data(). > > > > Have you used --patience when prepared the patch for sending? > > > > ... > > > > > -const void *i2c_get_match_data(const struct i2c_client *client) > > > +static const void *i2c_get_match_data_helper(const struct > i2c_driver *driver, > > > + const struct i2c_client *client) > > > { > > > > > - struct i2c_driver *driver = to_i2c_driver(client->dev.driver); > > > > Does it make sense to remove and add an additional parameter? In one > > case it's a copy, in another it probably the same, just hidden in the > code. > > > > > const struct i2c_device_id *match; > > > + > > > + match = i2c_match_id(driver->id_table, client); > > > + if (!match) > > > + return NULL; > > > + > > > + return (const void *)match->driver_data; } > > > + > > > +static const void *i2c_device_get_match_data(const struct device > > > +*dev) { > > > + /* TODO: use i2c_verify_client() when it accepts const pointer */ > > > + const struct i2c_client *client = (dev->type == > &i2c_client_type) ? > > > + to_i2c_client(dev) : NULL; > > > const void *data; > > > > > + if (!dev->driver) > > > + return NULL; > > > > When can this be true? > > It is not guaranteed that the function is always called on a device > bound to a driver (even though we normally expect this to be the case). > > > > > > + data = i2c_get_match_data_helper(to_i2c_driver(dev->driver), > client); > > > + if (data) > > > + return data; > > > > > > - data = (const void *)match->driver_data; > > > + if (dev->driver->of_match_table) { > > > + const struct of_device_id *match; > > > + > > > + match = i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(dev->driver- > >of_match_table, > > > + (struct i2c_client *)client); > > Can we make i2c_of_match_device_sysfs() take a const pointer to a > client? Casting away constness is something that we should avoid. I agree, we are not supposed to modify client pointer inside i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(), so const makes sense here. Wolfram, I guess you are ok with it. > > > > + if (match) > > > + data = match->data; > > > } > > > > > > return data; > > > } > > > > ... > > > > > -static const struct of_device_id* > > > +const struct of_device_id* > > > > While here, add a missing space after of_device_id. > > > > ... > > > > > +const struct of_device_id* > > > > Ditto. > > > > Or use below (weird) style in case it occurs more often than usual > one. > > > > > +i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(const struct of_device_id *matches, > > > + struct i2c_client *client); > > > + > > > const struct of_device_id > > > *i2c_of_match_device(const struct of_device_id *matches, > > > struct i2c_client *client); > > > > ... > > > > > +static inline const struct of_device_id *i2c_of_match_device(const > > > +struct of_device_id *matches, > > > > As per above. > > Was it supposed to be i2c_of_match_device_sysfs()? Also, this should be > in drivers/i2c/i2c-core.h, not in public header. Agreed. Cheers, Biju
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:34:18AM +0000, Biju Das wrote: ... > > Can we make i2c_of_match_device_sysfs() take a const pointer to a > > client? Casting away constness is something that we should avoid. > > I agree, we are not supposed to modify client pointer inside > i2c_of_match_device_sysfs(), so const makes sense here. > Wolfram, I guess you are ok with it. Don't forget to do that in a separate patch as well!
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 07:59:21AM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 06:03:18PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: ... > > > - struct i2c_driver *driver = to_i2c_driver(client->dev.driver); > > > > Does it make sense to remove and add an additional parameter? In one > > case it's a copy, in another it probably the same, just hidden in the > > code. > > Ok, you mean add the below check in i2c_device_get_match_data() and > drop *driver parameter from i2c_get_match_data_helper(). Right. > if (!client || !dev->driver) > return NULL; Not sure if you need this here in this static helper.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 06:34:56AM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 06:03:18PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: ... > > > * Changed i2c_of_match_device_sysfs() as non-static function as it is > > > needed for i2c_device_get_match_data(). > > > > Btw, this can be split to a separate change. > > OK, first patch is callback with I2C table match and > Second patch is for handling i2c_of_match_device(). One patch making API non-static, second, third, ... patches -- other things.