Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] gpiolib: cdev: relocate debounce_period_us from struct gpio_desc

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:06:14PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 5:41 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:14:41AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:09:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:03:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:58:11PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:

...

> > > > > > +static void supinfo_init(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       supinfo.tree = RB_ROOT;
> > > > > > +       spin_lock_init(&supinfo.lock);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > Can it be done statically?
> > > > >
> > > > > supinfo = {
> > > > >   .tree = RB_ROOT,
> > > > >   .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(supinfo.lock),
> 
> Double underscore typically means it's private and shouldn't be used.

Right, but when you have a struct you have no other means to initialize this
directly.

> > > > I even checked the current tree, we have 32 users of this pattern in drivers/.

See, there are users of the __ initializers.

> > > Ah, that is what you meant.  Yeah sure can - the supinfo_init() is
> > > another hangover from when I was trying to create the supinfo per chip,
> > > but now it is a global a static initialiser makes sense.
> >
> > Yep, the DEFINE_MUTEX() / DEFINE_SPINLOCK() / etc looks better naturally
> > than above.
> 
> Yeah, so maybe we should use non-struct, global variables after all.

At least this will allow to get rid of (questionable) initcall.

> > > And I still haven't received the email you quote there.
> >
> > :-( I'm not sure we will get it, it most likely that I removed it already
> > and it has disappeared due to problems with email server...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko