On 08-09-20, 17:38, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:18 PM Amit Kucheria <amitk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 08-09-20, 16:41, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > On 0908, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > On 08-09-20, 13:27, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > > Use regmap for accessing cpufreq registers in hardware. > > > > > > > > > > Why ? Please mention why a change is required in the log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only because it is recommended to use regmap for abstracting the hw access. > > > > > > Yes it can be very useful in abstracting the hw access in case of > > > busses like SPI/I2C, others, but in this case there is only one way of > > > doing it with the exact same registers. I am not sure it is worth it > > > here. FWIW, I have never played with regmaps personally, and so every > > > chance I can be wrong here. > > > > One could handle the reg offsets through a struct initialisation, but > > then you end up with lots of #defines for bitmasks and bits for each > > version of the IP. And the core code becomes a bit convoluted IMO, > > trying to handle the differences. > > > > regmap hides the differences of the bit positions and register offsets > > between several IP versions. Right and I agree that is another useful aspect of it which I missed mentioning. > > > > Moreover it handles the proper locking for us in the core (spinlock vs mutex). > > > > > > What locking do you need here ? > > > > Right, locking isn't the main reason here. > > Having said this, perhaps this patch can be held back for now, since > we're not yet using some of the features of regmap to abstract away > bit fields and such. > > We don't strictly need it for just different register offsets. Right, I just didn't understood why it was required currently as it wasn't all that complex at all. -- viresh
