Am 2021-05-20 14:42, schrieb Vaittinen, Matti:
On Thu, 2021-05-20 at 14:22 +0200, Michael Walle wrote:Am 2021-05-20 14:00, schrieb Matti Vaittinen: > On Thu, 2021-05-20 at 13:42 +0200, Michael Walle wrote: > > Am 2021-05-20 13:28, schrieb Matti Vaittinen: > > > The set_config and init_valid_mask GPIO operations are usually > > > very > > > IC > > > specific. Allow IC drivers to provide these custom operations > > > at > > > gpio-regmap registration. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen < > > > matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c | 49 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/linux/gpio/regmap.h | 13 ++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio- > > > regmap.c > > > index 134cedf151a7..315285cacd3f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c > > > @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ struct gpio_regmap { > > > int (*reg_mask_xlate)(struct gpio_regmap *gpio, > > > unsigned int > > > base, > > > unsigned int offset, unsigned int > > > *reg, > > > unsigned int *mask); > > > + int (*set_config)(struct regmap *regmap, void *drvdata, > > > + unsigned int offset, unsigned long > > > config); > > > + int (*init_valid_mask)(struct regmap *regmap, void > > > *drvdata, > > > + unsigned long *valid_mask, > > > unsigned int > > > ngpios); > > > > Maybe we should also make the first argument a "struct > > gpio_regmap" > > and provide a new gpio_regmap_get_regmap(struct gpio_regmap). > > Thus > > having a similar api as for the reg_mask_xlate(). Andy? > > I don't really see the reason of making this any more complicated > for > IC drivers. If we don't open the struct gpio_regmap to IC drivers - > then they never need the struct gpio_regmap pointer itself but each > IC > driver would need to do some unnecessary function call > (gpio_regmap_get_regmap() in this case). I'd say that would be > unnecessary bloat. If there is ever the need of additional parameters, you'll have to modify that parameter list. Otherwise you'll just have to add a new function. Thus might be more future proof.I do hope the "void *drvdata" allows enough flexibility so that there is no need to add new parameters.
Thats for information passed from the user of gpio_regmap to the callbacks.
And if there is, then I don't see how the struct gpio_regmap pointer would have saved us - unless we open the contents of struct gpio_regmap to IC drivers. (Which might make sense because that already contains plenty of register details which may need to be duplicated to drvdata for some IC-specific callbacks. Here we again have analogy to regulator_desc - which I have often used also in IC-specific custom callbacks. But as long as we hope to keep the struct gpio_regmap private I would not add it in arguments).
Because that (opaque) argument is then used for the helper functions of gpio_regmap. -michael
