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: <20210426095426.118356-1-tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
 <CAHp75VdRfPPj2pu4GOBVG4+bGUsCRLXYPsFjMwFOYfUTZuvJaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6f6bce2f070998db49acca2f6611727b@walle.cc> <CAHp75VdmTxvQBU4X8s-6csYgwM8ACth9Ao0GYjUH7+0Q0tyFyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ebbbe74fe638e1a6ab7c1547870f4b31@walle.cc> <CAHp75VcXEu2YGOoL70zueEgARCe8D+Q=CFsN62-vFK5svjJAQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <880011ffd80ae7d1a32e7a17d405b987@walle.cc> <CAHp75Vd41C8K9pNbNF6RYXUiASb1RYdUneoqqRp2f8sJCOAZog@mail.gmail.com>
 <3a23d7e901ac72630aadbd274517f8ec@walle.cc>
In-Reply-To: <3a23d7e901ac72630aadbd274517f8ec@walle.cc>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:02:29 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vef9xMB=boEJitxG5TOanuGLFktj5Pxf8L7et+6BHx00Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] gpio: Add support for IDT 79RC3243x GPIO controller
To:     Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Cc:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 5:48 PM Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> wrote:
>
> [Adding Mark here, too]
>
> Am 2021-04-28 16:32, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 5:04 PM Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> wrote:
> >> Am 2021-04-28 15:44, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 2:57 PM Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Am 2021-04-28 13:07, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:51 AM Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> wrote:
> >> >> >> Am 2021-04-26 12:29, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:55 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> >> >> >> > <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2) there is gpio-regmap generic code, that may be worth
> >> >> >> > considering.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This driver uses memory mapped registers. While that is
> >> >> >> also possible with gpio-regmap, there is one drawback:
> >> >> >> it assumes gpiochip->can_sleep = true for now, see [1].
> >> >> >> Unfortunately, there is no easy way to ask the regmap
> >> >> >> if its mmio/fastio.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't see how it is an impediment.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'd have to use the *_cansleep() variants with the gpios,
> >> >> which cannot be used everywhere, no?
> >> >
> >> > *can* sleep means that it requires a sleeping context to run, if your
> >> > controller is fine with that, there are no worries. OTOH if you want
> >> > to run this in an atomic context, then consumers can't do with that
> >> > kind of controller.
> >>
> >> Ok, then we are on the same track.
> >>
> >> > What I meant above (and you stripped it here) is
> >> > to add a patch that will fix that and set it based on
> >> > gpio_regmap_config.
> >>
> >> Yes, but ideally, it would ask the regmap. Otherwise that
> >> information is redundant and might mismatch, i.e. gpio_regmap_config
> >> tell can_sleep=false but the regmap is an I2C type for example. Also
> >> if a driver wants to support both regmap types, we are no step
> >> further.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree that is a band aid, but you are free to fix it actually
> > on regmap level.
> > I don't think it will require an enormous amount of work there.
>
> I'd love to fix that, but Mark was against exposing that property
> outside of regmap. So it it what it is for now ;) Maybe he'll change
> his mind or someone has another idea.

Then let's go to ugly variant with duplicating it in gpio-regmap
config. with a FIXME note or so. I don't think we should allow new
drivers be based on bgpio_init().

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko