Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-17829-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240105-phy-qcom-eusb2-repeater-fixes-v2-0-775d98e7df05@linaro.org>
 <20240105-phy-qcom-eusb2-repeater-fixes-v2-2-775d98e7df05@linaro.org> <158df3b2-a7fa-449d-9cc8-1e4cdf6ef49b@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <158df3b2-a7fa-449d-9cc8-1e4cdf6ef49b@linaro.org>
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 14:22:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpq88bhFFY2RcSEqaecoTw4a_ps6Osx5rJs3s0Mi7toXyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] phy: qualcomm: eusb2-repeater: Rework init to drop
 redundant zero-out loop
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, 
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>, 
	Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 13:44, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 5.01.2024 11:16, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > The device match config init table already has zero values, so rework
> > the container struct to hold a copy of the init table that can be
> > override be the DT specified values. By doing this, only the number of
> > vregs remain in the device match config that will be later needed, so
> > instead of holding the cfg after probe, store the number of vregs in the
> > container struct.
> >
> > Fixes: 99a517a582fc ("phy: qualcomm: phy-qcom-eusb2-repeater: Zero out untouched tuning regs")
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
> > ---
>
> This looks good as-is, though I think my proposal of storing the
> peripheral base reg instead is still better, as it'd require less
> memory (no kmemdup as the regs wouldn't be modified).

I'd second this. We usually handle such cases via the base + offset
rather than patching the data. If regfields can not handle this, then
the regfield should be fixed.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry