Re: [PATCH v1 03/17] pinctrl: cy8c95x0: Allow most of the registers to be cached

[Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I've tested the patch series on my OpenBMC platform and it works fine.

I don't think it's worth the effort to implement virtual registers for
the muxed pin configuration,
but I won't stop you.

Regards,
Patrick

On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:37 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 4:34 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 2:57 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 9:36 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's unclear why many of static registers were marked as volatile.
> > > >
> > > > the static (yeah, forgot it)
> > > >
> > > > > They are pretty much bidirectional and static in a sense that
> > > > > written value is kept there until a new write or chip reset.
> > > > > Drop those registers from the list to allow them to be cached.
> > > >
> > > > This patch is not correct due to indexing access. It's sneaked since I
> > > > forgot I added it into my main repo. The proper approach should be to
> > > > create virtual registers and decode them before use. This allows to
> > > > cache all ports and as a benefit to debug print all port actual
> > > > statuses.
> > >
> > > To be clear: With this one removed from the bunch the rest can be applied w.o.
> > > any change.
> >
> > I'll give Patrick a day or two to test/review and then I'll just apply
> > them all except this one, they are all pretty self-evident
>
> Sure!
>
> > except ACPI
> > things which have obviously been tested on hardware
>
> Yes, I have a Galileo Gen 1 board which has been used for testing.
>
> >  so from my
> > point of view it's good to merge.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko