[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 2/8] mfd: bd70528: Support ROHM bd70528 PMIC - core
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:54:52AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > Actually, now that I thik of it the right way to do this would have
> > been the function pointer in parent data as was done in original patch
> > set. HW-colleagues tend to re-use HW blocks, and we like to re-use our
> > drivers. If the next PMIC from ROHM uses same RTC block but does not
> > provide watchdog - then it is cleanest solution to fall back to
> > function pointer and leave it to NULL when there is no WDT or when WDT
> > is unused. Another option is to export dummy function - which is not so
> > nice.
> I think the converse is true.
> Pointers to functions outside of a subsystem API context are generally
> horrible. It's much nicer to call a function which can be easily
> stubbed out in a header file based on a Kconfig option. It's how most
> kernel APIs work.

I hate to admit but I see your point. This nicely solves any issues in
syncronizing the startup for driver providing function pointer and for
driver using it.

> > Additional benefit from function pointer would have been that the
> > function pointer can be only used by drivers which have acces to it.
> > This exported function is globally visible. The WDT disable/enable is
> > very specific procedure and it actually would be nicer design to not
> > have it visible globally. It is not intended to be used by anything
> > else besides the WDT and RTC here.
> Why would anything else try to use it?
> There are 1000's of exported functions in the kernel. If it's
> properly namespaced a consumer would have to purposely call it, which
> if they really wanted to, they could do anyway. I don't really see
> your point.

I could still argue on this. It _is_ less obvous that an exported function
is not meant to be publicly used than it is for function pointers. But
as you say, this is not a strong enough point to see the trouble in
synchronizing the WDT/RTC startup.

> > But I can't say there will be PMIC with same RTC and no WDT coming from
> > ROHM. Also, I am not terribly excited about the option of changing this
> > back to function-pointer as I already removed the pointer from parent
> > data and this changed parent data is already adapted to all sub drivers
> > - so this is all just babbling. Maybe it is just my huge ego shouting
> > there - 'I was right, I must have the final say'.
> No, a call-back function would be a back-step.

You are probably right.

> Ego or no ego, you're wrong. =:-D

I'd rephrase that as "It's not that I am wrong, but you are right." =)

> > As a side note, I already did submit v12 with other styling fixes but
> > which left the WDT function in MFD. If you still see the WDT functions
> > should be exported from WDT - then please ignore the v12. I'll do v13
> > at the afternoon (my time, which is only a bit after noon your time I
> > guess) which will export these functions from WDT. (Well, I had to try
> > once more :D)
> Please keep the WDT code in the WDT driver. Create a little stub for
> the cases where the WDT driver is not enabled - job done.

Yes Sir.

Matti Vaittinen

Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU

~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-04 09:26    [W:0.086 / U:4.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site