On 21-11-10 17:14:37, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 16:30:42 -0700 > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > In preparation for moving parts of register mapping to cxl_core, split > > cxl_pci_setup_regs() into a helper that finds register blocks, > > (cxl_find_regblock()), and a generic wrapper that probes the precise > > register sets within a block (cxl_setup_regs()). > > > > Move the actual mapping (cxl_map_regs()) of the only register-set that > > cxl_pci cares about (memory device registers) up a level from the former > > cxl_pci_setup_regs() into cxl_pci_probe(). > > > > With this change the unused component registers are no longer mapped, > > but the helpers are primed to move into the core. > > > > [djbw: drop cxl_map_regs() for component registers] > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > [djbw: rebase on the cxl_register_map refactor] > > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > Hi Ben / all, > > This is probably the best patch to comment on for this > (note it is not a comment about this patch, but more the state we end up > in after it). > > cxl_map_regs() is a generic function, but with the new split approach > as a result of this patch, we now always know at the caller which of > the types of map we are doing. > > I think it would be clearer to embrace that situation and drop cxl_map_regs() > in favor of directly calling the relevant specific versions such as > cxl_map_device_regs(). I can't immediately see how the generic cxl_map_regs() > will be useful to us going forwards. > > Jonathan I completely agree. Long term, something like cxl_map_regs() might be desirable for a Type2 device, but we have no such user today. Patches welcome?
