Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] gpio: i8255: Migrate to regmap API

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:13:34AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:07:42AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 02:52:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 08:55:53PM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:

...

> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c | 397 ++++++++++-------------------
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-gpio-mm.c     | 151 +++--------
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-i8255.c       | 429 +++++++++++---------------------
> > > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-i8255.h       |  80 +++---
> > > 
> > > Can we actually split this to a few steps:
> > >  - providing gpio-i8255-regmap
> > >  - providing gpio-mm-regmap
> > >  - converting the driver
> > >  - removing not used modules (one by one)
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > In this case if any regression somewhere appears, we can always perform a
> > > (semi-)revert for a certain driver.
> > 
> > Sure, I can split the regmap_irq migration for 104-dio-48e into a
> > separate precursor patch to reduce the amount of changes we see here and
> > provide a revert path for these IRQ changes. I can do a similar change
> > for 104-idi-48 as well.
> > 
> > The rest of the changes for 104-dio-48 and gpio-mm are essentially just
> > the regmap configurations, so the patch will be largely identical even
> > if we migrate gpio-i8255 to regmap API first before migrating again to
> > the gpio_regmap in a second patch.
> 
> Sorry, I realize now that you meant to split the i8255 gpio_regmap
> additions to their own patch, perform the driver migrations in the own
> respective patches, and then finally remove the dangling unused i8255
> functions and structures. Yes I think that would make for a cleaner
> patch series so I'll split it up that way.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko