On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:46 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue Jun 24, 2025 at 2:31 PM CEST, Daniel Almeida wrote:
> > On 23 Jun 2025, at 16:28, Benno Lossin <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon Jun 23, 2025 at 9:18 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >>> try_pin_init!(&this in Self {
> >>> handler,
> >>> inner: Devres::new(
> >>> dev,
> >>> RegistrationInner {
> >>> // Needs to use `handler` address as cookie, same for
> >>> // request_irq().
> >>> cookie: &raw (*(this.as_ptr().cast()).handler),
> >>> irq: {
> >>> to_result(unsafe { bindings::request_irq(...) })?;
> >>> irq
> >>> }
> >>> },
> >>> GFP_KERNEL,
> >>> )?,
> >>> _pin: PhantomPinned
> >>> })
> >>
> >> Well yes and no, with the Devres changes, the `cookie` can just be the
> >> address of the `RegistrationInner` & we can do it this way :)
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Cheers,
> >> Benno
> >
> >
> > No, we need this to be the address of the the whole thing (i.e.
> > Registration<T>), otherwise you can’t access the handler in the irq
> > callback.
>
> Gotcha, so you keep the cookie field, but you should still be able to
> use `try_pin_init` & the devres improvements to avoid the use of
> `pin_init_from_closure`.
It sounds like this is getting too complicated and that
`pin_init_from_closure` is the simpler way to go.
Alice
