Re: [PATCH 00/49] regmap-irq cleanups and refactoring

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:07 PM Aidan MacDonald
<aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Here's a bunch of cleanups for regmap-irq focused on simplifying the API
> and generalizing it a bit. It's broken up into three refactors, focusing
> on one area at a time.
>
> * Patches 01 and 02 are straightforward bugfixes, independent of the
>   rest of the series. Neither of the bugs are triggered by in-tree
>   drivers but they might be worth picking up early anyhow.
>
> * Patches 03-13 clean up everything related to configuring IRQ types.
>
> * Patches 14-45 deal with mask/unmask registers. First, make unmask
>   registers behave more intuitively and usefully, and get rid of the
>   mask_invert flag in favor of describing inverted mask registers as
>   unmask registers. Second, make the mask_writeonly flag more useful
>   and enable it for two chips where it makes sense.
>
> * Patches 46-49 refactor sub_irq_reg() as a get_irq_reg() callback,
>   and use that to eliminate the not_fixed_stride flag.
>
> The approach I used when refactoring is pretty simple: (1) introduce new
> functionality in regmap-irq, (2) convert the drivers, and (3) remove any
> old code. Nothing should break in the middle.
>
> The patches can be re-ordered to some extent if that's preferable, but
> it's best to add get_irq_reg() last to avoid having to think about how
> it interacts with features that'll be removed anyway.
>
> I can't test most of the devices affected by this series so a lot of the
> code is only build tested. I've tested on real hardware with my AXP192
> patchset[1], although it only provides limited code coverage.
>
> qcom-pm8008 in particular deserves careful testing - it used all of the
> features touched by the refactors and required the most changes. Other
> drivers only required trivial changes but there are three of them worth
> mentioning: wcd943x, wcd9335, and wcd938x. They have suspicious looking
> IRQ type definitions and I'm pretty sure aren't working properly, but
> I can't fix them myself. The refactor shouldn't affect their behavior
> so how / when / if they get fixed shouldn't be much of an issue.
>
> Oh, and I added the 'mask_writeonly' flag and volatile ranges to the
> stpmic1 driver based on its datasheet[2] as a small optimization. It's
> probably fine but testing would be a good idea.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20220618214009.2178567-1-aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmailcom/
> [2]: https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/stpmic1.pdf

Cool series, thanks for cleaning this up!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko