Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1479073 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v5 6/6] gpio: pca953x: make the define names consistent

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH v5 6/6] gpio: pca953x: make the define names consistent Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-08 12:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] gpio: pca953x: make the define names consistent Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2016-09-08 14:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] gpio: pca953x: make the define names consistent Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> - 2016-09-08 14:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] gpio: pca953x: make the define names consistent Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] gpio: pca953x: make the define names consistent Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-09-08 14:30 +0200

#1479073 — [PATCH v5 6/6] gpio: pca953x: make the define names consistent

The register offset defines for the pca953x and pca957x expander
families should have the same names to better reflect their similar
purposes.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
index 71e1344..78ab25e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
@@ -29,12 +29,12 @@
 
 #define REG_ADDR_AI		0x80
 
-#define PCA957X_IN		0
+#define PCA957X_INPUT		0
 #define PCA957X_INVRT		1
 #define PCA957X_BKEN		2
 #define PCA957X_PUPD		3
-#define PCA957X_CFG		4
-#define PCA957X_OUT		5
+#define PCA957X_DIRECTION	4
+#define PCA957X_OUTPUT		5
 #define PCA957X_MSK		6
 #define PCA957X_INTS		7
 
@@ -107,9 +107,9 @@ static const struct pca953x_reg_config pca953x_regs = {
 };
 
 static const struct pca953x_reg_config pca957x_regs = {
-	.direction = PCA957X_CFG,
-	.output = PCA957X_OUT,
-	.input = PCA957X_IN,
+	.direction = PCA957X_DIRECTION,
+	.output = PCA957X_OUTPUT,
+	.input = PCA957X_INPUT,
 };
 
 struct pca953x_chip {
@@ -699,10 +699,10 @@ static int device_pca957x_init(struct pca953x_chip *chip, u32 invert)
 
 	chip->regs = &pca957x_regs;
 
-	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_OUT, chip->reg_output);
+	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_OUTPUT, chip->reg_output);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
-	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_CFG, chip->reg_direction);
+	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_DIRECTION, chip->reg_direction);
 	if (ret)
 		goto out;
 
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1479162

On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 12:48 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> The register offset defines for the pca953x and pca957x expander
> families should have the same names to better reflect their similar
> purposes.



 
>  	chip->regs = &pca957x_regs;
>  
> -	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_OUT, chip->reg_output);
> +	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_OUTPUT, chip-
> >reg_output);
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out;
> -	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_CFG, chip-
> >reg_direction);
> +	ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_DIRECTION, chip-
> >reg_direction);

Bu we may use chip->regs->direction here, right? And output before. 

>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out;
>  

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1479166

On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 15:27 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 12:48 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > 
> > The register offset defines for the pca953x and pca957x expander
> > families should have the same names to better reflect their similar
> > purposes.
> 

And one more question. If it is done in datasheet as is used currently
in the driver I would leave it to be aligned with official
documentation.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1479268

2016-09-08 14:29 GMT+02:00 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>:
> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 15:27 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 12:48 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> >
>> > The register offset defines for the pca953x and pca957x expander
>> > families should have the same names to better reflect their similar
>> > purposes.
>>
>
> And one more question. If it is done in datasheet as is used currently
> in the driver I would leave it to be aligned with official
> documentation.
>

Right, the current names seem to come from the datasheet register
table. I'll drop this patch in v6.

Thanks,
Bartosz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1479168

2016-09-08 14:27 GMT+02:00 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>:
> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 12:48 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> The register offset defines for the pca953x and pca957x expander
>> families should have the same names to better reflect their similar
>> purposes.
>
>
>
>
>>       chip->regs = &pca957x_regs;
>>
>> -     ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_OUT, chip->reg_output);
>> +     ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_OUTPUT, chip-
>> >reg_output);
>>       if (ret)
>>               goto out;
>> -     ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_CFG, chip-
>> >reg_direction);
>> +     ret = pca953x_read_regs(chip, PCA957X_DIRECTION, chip-
>> >reg_direction);
>
> Bu we may use chip->regs->direction here, right? And output before.
>

Yes, though it should go into patch 1/6.

Thanks,
Bartosz

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web