Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:20:25 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        linux-power <linux-power@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: irq_helpers: Allow omitting map_event for
 simple IRQs
Message-ID: <YZZvOdci9Y9p1gJq@sirena.org.uk>
References: <cover.1637233864.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
 <2a5d9589c1c76ce537f795ee0aa6d3a7a6093283.1637233864.git.matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
 <YZZWh1aIg7TAdOUX@sirena.org.uk>
 <f5a5cd1c-763b-4dc1-e40a-dafbc47a1eaf@fi.rohmeurope.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MizyrGJg3EpOEaYN"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f5a5cd1c-763b-4dc1-e40a-dafbc47a1eaf@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Precedence: bulk


--MizyrGJg3EpOEaYN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:14:02PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 11/18/21 15:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:48:26PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> > This isn't the usual pattern, normally we would have the driver assign
> > the helper operation.  We can always still do the check based on finding
> > the expected map_event set up.

> So, do you suggest that we export the map_event_simple() as a helper=20
> which drivers can provide to irq_helpers? If yes, do you think we should=
=20

Yes.

> leave out the sanity check regarding the conditions (only one common=20
> error and only one rdev)? Or should we compare the given map function to=
=20
> the adress of the map_event_simple() and perform checks if it matches?=20
> It looks a bit strange to me. Or did you have some other vision?

I don't really mind either way on the checks, they might help someone
but on the other hand having them based on a check that a particular
helper is used is a bit odd like you say so I wouldn't mind if they
went.  I don't really have any other idea for doing them.

--MizyrGJg3EpOEaYN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmGWbzgACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9COEwf/YCY4pG213wFZiBzGOlNoyh8EKjOjZXApAqx9aS3C88qsPJhu6OQqQ09P
+mP5YWIApRtGHM2ccCkTc85aq5DUqaVnrfJBRhxg2I47xx6ydRjB7iYseL5Q1gvn
V5aSgnRrTytacaRUrSK5jFgL9VLOvT2+NAZjiW6fFejWivGxZLsDQboLLnZscnKw
2YdnwLl6MefqDX8hlzP93iuZX+z5NGAPlCT0BrVJPLbPx48thEl8oGu79lcC2SLE
WqpdJbADJdlu/HaQQ6gK92QdlDG5P4vnL18gmU4Y9qysjiy/mPb9nRQJkWC01hHK
txzq+J2CeB611hdaGNRWcpalKACYyw==
=m/0o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MizyrGJg3EpOEaYN--