MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130618151116.GZ2718@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1344689809-6223-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
	<1347550912-18021-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
	<1347550912-18021-3-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
	<20130618113606.GA26763@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<CACRpkdZTVN2O-Rv4u-Ccb9EzV0At3zc7GYQyTq=HkseOi=GTeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130618151116.GZ2718@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:23:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdadS4Si0pqrxRrnriQk81aZgeKKQta7onEpJv3vi6mfdw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] pinctrl: mvebu: dove pinctrl driver
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
        Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
        Lior Amsalem <alior@marvell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
        Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
        "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1244
Lines: 31

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 05:02:49PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Nowadays I would do the above with regmap_update_bits().
>>
>> Mutual exclusion for read-modify-write of individual bits in a
>> register is one of those cases where doing a regmap over
>> a memory-mapped register range makes a lot of sense.
>> (drivers/mfd/syscon.c being a nice example)
>
> So, for that solution we need to have some kind of global regmap per
> register or somesuch.  Then you run into regmap needing a struct
> device - well, with a shared register, which struct device do you
> use, or do you have to invent one?

Usually, like for syscon, you create an MFD hub which
carry the regmap.

> That sounds more heavy-weight than is really necessary.

May be so, especially if there is just one register to protect.
The usefulness of MM-regmap increase with the set of registers
needing to be protected.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/