On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:43 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:37 PM Bartosz Golaszewski > <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:17 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > +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? > > It's not a typo. But thinking again. This is basically done in regmap > to support serial buses. Here we have MMIO pretty much with 32-bit or > 64-bit address accesses. I didn't dig into regmap implementation to > understand the consequences of changing this to the different values > (it seems like rather offset, and in this case 11 is a correct one, > not a typo, and regmap is okay with that). > But I would rather ask Jan to actually mount debugfs and dump > registers and see if it screws up the UART (because it may go all over > important registers), that's why I think this configuration is still > missing some strict rules about what addresses (offsets) driver may or > may not access. Ok now I get it. Yes 11 seems to be right in this case for the max address. We can implement the readable/writable callbacks to be very strict about the register accesses but isn't it overkill? This driver is very small and only accesses a couple registers. I don't see such strict checking very often except for very complicated modules (like pca953x you mentioned). Bartosz