On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:51:15AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sat, 3 Dec 2022, Xu Yilun wrote: > > On 2022-12-02 at 12:08:39 +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > +struct regmap *__devm_m10_regmap_indirect(struct device *dev, > > We name the file intel-m10-bmc-pmci-xxx.c, and this function > > xx_m10_regmap_xx(). But I can see the implementation is just about the indirect > > bus which from your commit message could be used by various DFL features > > like HSSI or PMCI. So is it better we put the implementation in > > drivers/fpga and name the file dfl-indirect-regmap.c and the > > initialization function dfl_indirect_regmap_init()? > I guess that would be doable unless Mark objects. My understanding was > that he preferred to have in the driver that is currently using it. > Mark, any opinion on this? The above does not look good. As I have said several times now drivers implementing their own regmap operations should use the reg_read() and reg_write() operations in regmap_config when allocating their regmap unless they're doing something unusual. There are a few cases where it makes sense but nothing I've seen here makes it look like this is one of them. Most of the current users don't fit. Please, just implement a normal driver using a normal regmap_config as I've repeatedly said you should if you don't want to provide something generic.
Description: PGP signature