On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:50 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 10.11.20 15:30, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 04:26:24PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:34:05PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> We can simplify the code in gpio-exar by using regmap. This allows us to > >>>> drop the mutex (regmap provides its own locking) and we can also reuse > >>>> regmap's bit operations instead of implementing our own update function. > >>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * We don't need to check the return values of mmio regmap operations (unless > >>>> + * the regmap has a clock attached which is not the case here). > >>>> + */ > >>>> + exar_gpio->regs = devm_regmap_init_mmio(dev, p, &exar_regmap_config); > >>>> + if (IS_ERR(exar_gpio->regs)) > >>>> + return PTR_ERR(exar_gpio->regs); > >>>> > >>>> index = ida_alloc(&ida_index, GFP_KERNEL); > >>>> - if (index < 0) { > >>>> - ret = index; > >>>> - goto err_mutex_destroy; > >>>> - } > >>>> + if (index < 0) > >>>> + return index; > >>> > >>> And below you effectively use p as regmap! > >>> That's what renaming of variable regs -> regmap or map can easily reveal. > >>> > >>> exar_gpio->regs = p; > >> > >> Jan, if you remove this line, does it help? > >> > > > > Ha! I guess you were right saying that keeping the name is asking for > > trouble then. :) > > > > I think that may be it but address width should still be changed to 16. > > > > Removing the line that Andy found made things work here. And switching > to 16 for reg_bits didn't make things worse again. > > Jan Alright! I'll send a v4 with these things fixed then. Bartosz