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;
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 00:28:22 +0800
From:   Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
To:     Ilpo =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
        Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@intel.com>,
        Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Marco Pagani <marpagan@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Add PMCI driver
Message-ID: <Y44cJjKZvpL+SUHb@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
References: <20221202100841.4741-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20221202100841.4741-8-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
 <Y4ox5J0junaUYyT7@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
 <855d463e-fb84-1910-f53-58e6b0a633a4@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <855d463e-fb84-1910-f53-58e6b0a633a4@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-12-05 at 11:51:15 +0200, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2022, Xu Yilun wrote:
> 
> > On 2022-12-02 at 12:08:39 +0200, Ilpo J?rvinen wrote:
> > > +					  void __iomem *base,
> > > +					  struct regmap_config *cfg,
> > > +					  struct lock_class_key *lock_key,
> > > +					  const char *lock_name)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct indirect_ctx *ctx;
> > > +
> > > +	ctx = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	if (!ctx)
> > > +		return NULL;
> > > +
> > > +	ctx->base = base;
> > > +	ctx->dev = dev;
> > > +
> > > +	indirect_bus_clear_cmd(ctx);
> > > +
> > > +	return __devm_regmap_init(dev, &indirect_bus, ctx, cfg, lock_key, lock_name);
> > 
> > Sorry, I just can't remember why don't we just call devm_regmap_init() and
> > get rid of all lock stuff?
> 
> At this point, we're already entered into __-domain though a
> __regmap_lockdep_wrapper(). If I call devm_regmap_init() here, the 
> second call into the wrapper would create another key which doesn't seem 
> right.

I mean could we not define new regmap_init_xxx & __regmap_init_xxx
APIs? Just call devm_regmap_init() when we have prepared the context,
devm_regmap_init() will take care of the lock stuff.

Thanks,
Yilun