Am 2021-05-21 12:25, schrieb Vaittinen, Matti:
On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 12:19 +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
Am 2021-05-21 12:09, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:53 PM Matti Vaittinen
> <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Changelog v2: (based on suggestions by Michael Walle)
> > - drop gpio_regmap_set_drvdata()
>
> But why do we have gpio_regmap_get_drvdata() and why is it
> different
> now to the new member handling?
Eg. the reg_mask_xlate() callback is just passed a "struct
gpio_regmap*".
If someone needs to access private data there,
gpio_regmap_get_drvdata()
is used. At least that was its intention.
I would help the IC driver here too and just directly provide the
drvdata pointer as argument. I don't see much value in providing the
regmap_gpio pointer as IC driver can not dereference it.
What is it with the "it's useless if one cannot dereference it"? You're
also passing "struct regmap *" which you cannot dereference. It's an
opaque pointer you need to pass to gpio_regmap to call a function there.
What is the problem with letting gpio_regmap derefence its internal data
structure and return the value for you?
Adding the drvdata to reg_mask_xlate() highlights my former concern; you
need to keep chaning the users to add another parameter. What if xlate()
needs the regmap, too? Then you need to change it again. Granted this is
a silly example, but you should get my point. It is by far more easy to
just add another new gpio_regmap_*(struct gpio_regmap *) function and
you don't have to change existing users.
Also what if gpio_regmap provides some useful helper function in the
future, it will likely need its internal data struct.
-michael
