[v1,0/2] gpiolib: acpi: Improve IRQ labeling

The IRQ labeling now is quite ambiguous, improve it here.

Andy Shevchenko (2):
  gpiolib: acpi: Add fwnode name to the GPIO interrupt label
  gpiolib: acpi: Set label for IRQ only lines

 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:37:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> It's ambiguous to have a device-related index in the GPIO interrupt
> label as most of the devices will have it the same or very similar.
> Extend label with fwnode name for better granularity. It significantly
> reduces the scope of searching among devices.

Can you add an example here how it looks like before and after the
patch?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> index 909113312a1b..0b0c8729fc6e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> @@ -1035,6 +1035,7 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>  int acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get_by(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *con_id, int index,
>  				  bool *wake_capable)
>  {
> +	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = acpi_fwnode_handle(adev);
>  	int idx, i;
>  	unsigned int irq_flags;
>  	int ret;
> @@ -1044,7 +1045,7 @@ int acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get_by(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *con_id,
>  		struct gpio_desc *desc;
>  
>  		/* Ignore -EPROBE_DEFER, it only matters if idx matches */
> -		desc = __acpi_find_gpio(acpi_fwnode_handle(adev), con_id, i, true, &info);
> +		desc = __acpi_find_gpio(fwnode, con_id, i, true, &info);
>  		if (IS_ERR(desc) && PTR_ERR(desc) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>  			return PTR_ERR(desc);
>  
> @@ -1064,7 +1065,7 @@ int acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get_by(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *con_id,
>  			acpi_gpio_update_gpiod_flags(&dflags, &info);
>  			acpi_gpio_update_gpiod_lookup_flags(&lflags, &info);
>  
> -			snprintf(label, sizeof(label), "GpioInt() %d", index);
> +			snprintf(label, sizeof(label), "%pfwP GpioInt(%d)", fwnode, index);
>  			ret = gpiod_configure_flags(desc, label, lflags, dflags);
>  			if (ret < 0)
>  				return ret;
> -- 
> 2.43.0.rc1.1336.g36b5255a03ac

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 07:49:07AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:37:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > It's ambiguous to have a device-related index in the GPIO interrupt
> > label as most of the devices will have it the same or very similar.
> > Extend label with fwnode name for better granularity. It significantly
> > reduces the scope of searching among devices.
> 
> Can you add an example here how it looks like before and after the
> patch?

Sure:

Before:

  GpioInt() 0
  GpioInt() 0

After:

  NIO1 GpioInt(0)
  URT0 GpioInt(0)

Assuming I update this when applying, can you give your tag?

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:23:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 07:49:07AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:37:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > It's ambiguous to have a device-related index in the GPIO interrupt
> > > label as most of the devices will have it the same or very similar.
> > > Extend label with fwnode name for better granularity. It significantly
> > > reduces the scope of searching among devices.
> > 
> > Can you add an example here how it looks like before and after the
> > patch?
> 
> Sure:
> 
> Before:
> 
>   GpioInt() 0
>   GpioInt() 0
> 
> After:
> 
>   NIO1 GpioInt(0)
>   URT0 GpioInt(0)
> 
> Assuming I update this when applying, can you give your tag?

Sure. For both,

Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:33:59PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:23:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 07:49:07AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:37:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > It's ambiguous to have a device-related index in the GPIO interrupt
> > > > label as most of the devices will have it the same or very similar.
> > > > Extend label with fwnode name for better granularity. It significantly
> > > > reduces the scope of searching among devices.
> > > 
> > > Can you add an example here how it looks like before and after the
> > > patch?
> > 
> > Sure:
> > 
> > Before:
> > 
> >   GpioInt() 0
> >   GpioInt() 0
> > 
> > After:
> > 
> >   NIO1 GpioInt(0)
> >   URT0 GpioInt(0)
> > 
> > Assuming I update this when applying, can you give your tag?
> 
> Sure. For both,
> 
> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

Pushed to my review and testing queue, thanks!