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: <20200908075716.30357-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20200908075716.30357-6-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20200908103444.5e526uawa45om6lt@vireshk-i7>
 <20200908111141.GB23095@mani> <20200908111813.bbgfxo5v7qt6ujpc@vireshk-i7>
In-Reply-To: <20200908111813.bbgfxo5v7qt6ujpc@vireshk-i7>
From:   Amit Kucheria <amitk@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 17:18:35 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHLCerMndYeEBOxtj8mV7OdOP9pufx+C7n1F9m+CFAneuh8DnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Use regmap for accessing hardware registers
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
        Taniya Das <tdas@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 08-09-20, 16:41, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On 0908, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 08-09-20, 13:27, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > Use regmap for accessing cpufreq registers in hardware.
> > >
> > > Why ? Please mention why a change is required in the log.
> > >
> >
> > Only because it is recommended to use regmap for abstracting the hw access.
>
> Yes it can be very useful in abstracting the hw access in case of
> busses like SPI/I2C, others, but in this case there is only one way of
> doing it with the exact same registers. I am not sure it is worth it
> here. FWIW, I have never played with regmaps personally, and so every
> chance I can be wrong here.

One could handle the reg offsets through a struct initialisation, but
then you end up with lots of #defines for bitmasks and bits for each
version of the IP. And the core code becomes a bit convoluted IMO,
trying to handle the differences.

regmap hides the differences of the bit positions and register offsets
between several IP versions.

> > Moreover it handles the proper locking for us in the core (spinlock vs mutex).
>
> What locking do you need here ?

Right, locking isn't the main reason here.

>
> > I've seen many subsystem maintainers prefer regmap over plain readl/writel
> > calls. I'll add the reason in commit log.
>
> I am not sure if it is worth it here.