Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Apr 2020 08:14:47 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] mfd: syscon: Add Spreadtrum physical regmap bus support |
| |
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Baolin Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:05 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > Hi Arnd and Lee, > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:13 PM Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Some platforms such as Spreadtrum platform, define a special method to > > > > update bits of the registers instead of read-modify-write, which means > > > > we should use a physical regmap bus to define the reg_update_bits() > > > > operation instead of the MMIO regmap bus. Thus we can register a new > > > > physical regmap bus into syscon core to support this. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com> > > > > > > Do you have any comments for this patch? Thanks. > > > > Yes. I'm not accepting it, sorry. > > > > I'd rather you duplicate the things you need from of_syscon_register() > > in your own driver than taint this one. > > Thanks for your comments and I can understand your concern. But we > still want to use the standard syscon APIs in syscon.c, which means we > still need insert an callback or registration or other similar methods > to support vendor specific regmap bus. Otherwise we should invent some > similar syscon APIs in our vendor syscon driver, like > sprd_syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle/sprd_syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible.
So long as the generic driver stays generic. Providing a registration function sounds cleaner than tainting the code with vendor specifics.
> Arnd, what do you think? Thanks.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |