> On 18 Dec 2018, at 13:50, Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. I can reimplement the driver using regmap, but It seems in such case I won’t be able to use the Generic GPIO Infrastructure, would I? So I would need to provide functions for setting direction, etc. I think it would make the driver code bigger. Regards, Jan > Best regards, > Bartosz Golaszewski > >> Yours, >> Linus Walleij
