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.1621577204.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
 <6e319c22b41747e3911c7a5cad877134cabc9231.1621577204.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
 <CAHp75VcZwYdA5R=peC+8jHVT6UDsAT9msSs=W6C7rgfyjGPtXA@mail.gmail.com> <8c048bda0ace591d7e91c07ed9155338@walle.cc>
In-Reply-To: <8c048bda0ace591d7e91c07ed9155338@walle.cc>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 May 2021 14:19:49 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdbomvbAY42Bje7F8qjWfgeSnU8i2ULJRXpYKA+oTmwrg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] gpio: regmap: Support few IC specific operations
To:     Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-power <linux-power@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 1:19 PM Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> wrote:
>
> Am 2021-05-21 12:09, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:53 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> >> Changelog v2: (based on suggestions by Michael Walle)
> >>   - drop gpio_regmap_set_drvdata()
> >
> > But why do we have gpio_regmap_get_drvdata() and why is it different
> > now to the new member handling?
>
> Eg. the reg_mask_xlate() callback is just passed a "struct
> gpio_regmap*".
> If someone needs to access private data there, gpio_regmap_get_drvdata()
> is used. At least that was its intention.
>
> Thus I was also suggesting to use "struct gpio_regmap*" in the newer
> callbacks.
>
> I don't get what you mean by "different to the new member handling"?

Currently we have a symmetrical API that is getter and setter against
a certain field.
Now this change drops the setter and introduces some other field somewhere else.
Sounds to me:
 - either this has to be split into two changes with explanation of
what's going on
 - or something odd is happening here which I do not understand.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko