From: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: mazziesaccount@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
rafael@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
heikki.haikola@fi.rohmeurope.com,
mikko.mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] regmap: regmap-irq: Add main status register support
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:58:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181218085803.GD2477@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181217173244.GE27909@sirena.org.uk>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:32:44PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 04:08:12PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>
> > This is draft for approach proposed by Mark here:
> > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1812.1/07117.html
>
> > Pretty untested and diff is done against tree where the level active IRQ
> > support for regmap-irq was added. So please consider this just as a RFC
> > introducing the concept. I will format correct and better tested patch if
> > this is the preferred way to go.
>
> Hrm, so the parsing code is indeed quite complicated. I suspect it
> could be simplified if instead of trying to allocate just what's used it
> was a bit more wasteful and allocated the biggest arrays we might need
> but I'm not sure how much that'd really help so yeah, doing it the other
> way around might be better.
It might get a little bit simpler but not much I think. And the driver
interface could be a little bit simpler if we drop the support for
giving the "main bit mapping" as an array and only support giving the
main bits in the struct regmap_irqs. Then the num_main_status_bits,
num_main_regs and sub_reg_offsets could be made internal to regmap-irq.
OTOH dropping num_main_regs would add up one more thing requiring
dynamic allocation as we could not compute the number of main register
bits in advance.
I will proceed with the RFC v1 approach. Nothing prevents us from
implementing the v2 later if there is use-cases for that. But it will
take a while before I get this thing tested and user for it.
Additionally I guess we do need a bui-in from Lee as most of this kind
of devices with many sub blocks are likely to be represented as MFD
devices. I guess I should have included him in the recipient list for
the RFCs :/
Thanks for all the support this far!
Br,
Matti Vaittinen
--
Matti Vaittinen
ROHM Semiconductors
~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then, he vanished ~~~
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-18 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-14 14:08 [RFC v2] regmap: regmap-irq: Add main status register support Matti Vaittinen
2018-12-17 17:32 ` Mark Brown
2018-12-18 8:58 ` Matti Vaittinen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181218085803.GD2477@localhost.localdomain \
--to=matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=heikki.haikola@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mazziesaccount@gmail.com \
--cc=mikko.mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox