Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1587088646.git.baolin.wang7@gmail.com> <96d444cd73239e0166316bd8f44082031cf72491.1587088646.git.baolin.wang7@gmail.com>
 <20200424081138.GP3612@dell> <CAK8P3a1e15P6xRUgYLYxT8XUx7FREbs5mMbfL1Qj+qwoDfFX+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200424083255.GQ3612@dell>
In-Reply-To: <20200424083255.GQ3612@dell>
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:42:50 +0800
Message-ID: <CADBw62pisHz=ejgnhL=Y_qufCoZjPDLT90X2bztTZzMgbNMvmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: syscon: Support physical regmap bus
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
        Lyra Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:32 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:11 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > @@ -106,14 +107,25 @@ static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np, bool check_clk)
> > > >       syscon_config.val_bits = reg_io_width * 8;
> > > >       syscon_config.max_register = resource_size(&res) - reg_io_width;
> > > >
> > > > -     regmap = regmap_init_mmio(NULL, base, &syscon_config);
> > > > +      /*
> > > > +       * The Spreadtrum syscon need register a real physical regmap bus
> > > > +       * with new atomic bits updating operation instead of using
> > > > +       * read-modify-write.
> > > > +       */
> > > > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_SPRD) &&
> > > > +         of_device_is_compatible(np, "sprd,atomic-syscon") &&
> > >
> > > Please find a more generic way of supporting your use-case.  This is a
> > > generic driver, and as such I am vehemently against adding any sort of
> > > vendor specific code in here.
> >
> > I suggested doing it this way, as all alternatives seemed worse than this.
>
> If we're using a registration function (could probably be swapped out
> for or accompanied by a Device Tree property) anyway, then why conduct
> the vendor platform checks?

Actually I've send out the v3 patch according to Arnd's suggestion. In
v3 patch, I removed the registration function, but we agreed that
adding the vendor specific support in the syscon driver seems a better
way than others.

-- 
Baolin Wang