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: <20200515105537.4876-3-vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com>
 <202005152142.AWvx4xc5%lkp@intel.com> <CAHp75Ven9q-6dDYtP_uXigeS_r2uvpUZVR5Mh0RdEd36MbTG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a3RKJo-C5=19oAppx212s7T8NdnKJVmkj+h=34a8aKMNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5180e734-ff56-db5a-ab49-8a55cfa2f2c0@linux.intel.com> <CAHp75Ve_XjvvGBEQyhy=qVVJMFS+18j3aKxNxSQpGK5qJmzfBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a25GbMwbtvkxgmuGss6nEfAW4_vVbOXPxOYuDOaU_zcjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a25GbMwbtvkxgmuGss6nEfAW4_vVbOXPxOYuDOaU_zcjA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 16:20:10 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfFsdjAT0P4m3O=VQ1e_L7cVyQx6HB7MCN+G_XcFisqZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mtd: rawnand: Add NAND controller support on Intel
 LGM SoC
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" 
        <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY..." <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
        masonccyang@mxic.com.tw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:57 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:43 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:39 PM Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX
> > <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On 15/5/2020 10:30 pm, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:25 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:48 PM kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > iowrite_be32() is the correct way to store word into a big-endian mmio register,
> > > > if that is the intention here.
> > > Thank you for suggestions to use iowrite32be(), it suits exactly.
> >
> > Can you before doing this comment what is the real intention here?
> >
> > And note, if you are going to use iowrite*() / ioread*() in one place,
> > you will probably need to replace all of the read*() / write*() to
> > respective io* API.
>
> The way that ioread/iowrite are defined, they are required to be a superset
> of what readl/writel do and can take __iomem pointers from either
> ioremap() or ioport_map()/pci_iomap() style mappings, while readl/writel
> are only required to work with ioremap().
>
> There is no technical requirement to stick to one set or the other for
> ioremap(), but the overhead of ioread/iowrite is also small enough
> that it generally does not hurt.

Right, my suggestion is solely for consistency. It would be a bit
weird to see readl() along with ioread32() in the same driver (in case
there are no differentiated callbacks specifically for different type
of IP).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko