On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:17 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 04:12:38PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:09 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 05:04:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 03:55:51PM +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. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > +static const struct regmap_config exar_regmap_config = { > > > > > + .name = "exar-gpio", > > > > > + .reg_bits = 16, > > > > > > > > As per previous version comment. > > > > > > > > Hold on, the registers are 16-bit wide, but their halves are sparsed! > > > > So, I guess 8 and 8 with helpers to get hi and lo parts are essential. > > > > > > > > > > > > TABLE 5: DEVICE CONFIGURATION REGISTERS SHOWN IN BYTE ALIGNMENT > > > > > > > > > + .val_bits = 8, > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > This is basically represents two banks out of 6 8-bit registers each. > > > > > > ...which makes me wonder if gpio-regmap can be utilized here... > > > > > > > But the address width won't affect the actuall accessing of 8 bits > > registers in an mmio regmap. Internally the mmio regmap does pretty > > much the same thing the previous driver did: call readb()/writeb() on > > 8-bit "chunks" of the banks. > > It will affect reg dump in debugfs. I would really narrow down the register > address space in the config, otherwise that debugfs facility will screw up a > lot of things. > > So, and to be on pedantic side... > > "The Device Configuration Registers and the two individual UART Configuration > Registers of the XR17V352 occupy 2K of PCI bus memory address space." > > 11 seems the correct value for the address width. > I take it as a typo and assume you meant 16. So the patch should be correct and your review tag is good to go? Bartosz