Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
References: <20220620200644.1961936-1-aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com>
 <20220620200644.1961936-16-aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vd7Sq9RMqin_y-8qUEAJLaGfuqxAbe+qcMB22=bqkyZqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <FQHPnJKuXUHf8vLiZoXidpoim5RtEYUC@localhost>
 <CAHp75VfoMKo9-_OTF1AAC0KyNJOb5qvYPTgHxmkYwOfTJFSLkg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@codeaurora.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
        Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        "tharvey@gateworks.com" <tharvey@gateworks.com>,
        "rjones@gateworks.com" <rjones@gateworks.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
        "orsonzhai@gmail.com" <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
        "baolin.wang7@gmail.com" <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
        "zhang.lyra@gmail.com" <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-actions@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-actions@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev" <linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev>,
        ALSA Development Mailing List <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/49] regmap-irq: Change the behavior of mask_writeonly
In-reply-to: <CAHp75VfoMKo9-_OTF1AAC0KyNJOb5qvYPTgHxmkYwOfTJFSLkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:54:37 +0100
Message-ID: <8qRxwIYmbvte9HM2KVfkdhwPpeZ7oY9s@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022, Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:08 PM Aidan MacDonald
>> > <aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No drivers currently use mask_writeonly, and in its current form
>> >> it seems a bit misleading. When set, mask registers will be
>> >> updated with regmap_write_bits() instead of regmap_update_bits(),
>> >> but regmap_write_bits() still does a read-modify-write under the
>> >> hood. It's not a write-only operation.
>> >>
>> >> Performing a simple regmap_write() is probably more useful, since
>> >> it can be used for chips that have separate set & clear registers
>> >> for controlling mask bits. Such registers are normally volatile
>> >> and read as 0, so avoiding a register read minimizes bus traffic.
>> >
>> > Reading your explanations and the code, I would rather think about
>> > fixing the regmap_write_bits() to be writeonly op.
>>
>> That's impossible without special hardware support.
>>
>> > Otherwise it's unclear what's the difference between
>> > regmap_write_bits() vs. regmap_update_bits().
>>
>> This was not obvious to me either. They're the same except in how they
>> issue the low-level write op -- regmap_update_bits() will only do the
>> write if the new value differs from the current one. regmap_write_bits()
>> will always do a write, even if the new value is the same.
>
> Okay, it makes a lot of sense for W1C type of bits in the register.
> Also, =E2=80=9Creading=E2=80=9D might imply to restore last value from ca=
che, no?

Maybe there needs to be some explanation of what the typical use case is
and why you'd choose write_bits() over update_bits(), because the more I
think about it the less clear it is. You're right that the read could be
served from a cache. But I'm not sure if a cache would be safe if even
one bit in the register is volatile, and I can't really see a use case
for write_bits() that doesn't involve volatile behavior of some sort.

In any event, I'm just going to drop this patch and the related driver
patches in favor of removing mask_writeonly entirely, since it looks
like it was never used, and after thinking about it I'm not sure what
I did helps much. If some driver needs write_bits() for mask registers
down the road it's not a big deal to add this back.

>> I think the problem is lack of documentation. I only figured this out
>> by reading the implementation.
>>
>> >>         if (d->chip->mask_writeonly)
>> >> -               return regmap_write_bits(d->map, reg, mask, val);
>> >> +               return regmap_write(d->map, reg, val & mask);
>> >>         else
>> >>                 return regmap_update_bits(d->map, reg, mask, val);