On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Aidan MacDonald wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 04:53:09PM +0100, Aidan MacDonald wrote:
> >> - if (!chip->sub_reg_offsets || !chip->not_fixed_stride) {
> >> + if (chip->get_irq_reg) {
> >> + reg = chip->get_irq_reg(base_reg, i);
> >> + } else if (!chip->sub_reg_offsets || !chip->not_fixed_stride) {
> > It seems like it would be cleaner and clearer to refactor things so that
> > we always have a get_irq_reg() with standard chips getting given a
> > default implementation which implements the current behaviour.
> I don't think that is a good way to clean things up. I only intended
> get_irq_reg() to be a quick hack to solve a problem; in my opinion it
> would be a poor abstraction to base the API around.
I'm not sure why you are proposing this change if you are so convinced
it's a bad idea. If you want to propose a different rework go ahead,
but adding the new operation without any form of factoring out is an
issue. At first glance your suggestion looked plausible.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
