pon., 17 gru 2018 o 23:22 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 4:51 PM Bartosz Golaszewski > <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The driver looks good but is there any particular reason not to use > > regmap for register IO? > > I thought we only use regmap for MMIO when the register range is > shared (as in a system controller) so that some registers are for this, > some register or even bits in a register for some other driver, so they > need the spinlock in the regmap to protect the register range. > This is what syscon is for. Regmap simply abstracts any register IO. For instance: there's no locking in this driver. Are we sure it's not needed? Regmap provides internal locking for you in the form of a mutex or spinlock. Also: it looks like the interrupts here are quite simple with a single bit per interrupt in the status register and the same layout in the mask register - it could probably profit from using the regmap_irq_chip and not bother with reimplementing irq_chip callbacks. > It is also nice for shadowing/caching of register contents I guess, > wat does this driver get from regmap MMIO? > Code shrinkage IMO. Note that I'm not blocking this from being merged - I just think that using modern frameworks is always a good idea. Best regards, Bartosz Golaszewski > Yours, > Linus Walleij
