Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194080-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <ec96f8c72d4de7f7e6507f3bed38469cd609b8bb.camel@ew.tq-group.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] gpio: tqmx86: change tqmx86_gpio_write() order of
 arguments to match regmap API
From: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gregor Herburger
 <gregor.herburger@tq-group.com>,  linux@ew.tq-group.com
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 14:23:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <a83d2274-3b45-4206-891d-b1e5bbfd6e23@lunn.ch>
References: <cover.1716967982.git.matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
	 <56cb8a4f19ac0596318d740ed14091d6904d3f7f.1716967982.git.matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
	 <CAMRc=Me_JMjp55VYLFH_gX6+fdCR+3zpsWtds1W+hCmf+k70KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a83d2274-3b45-4206-891d-b1e5bbfd6e23@lunn.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu2 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 14:11 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 02:03:35PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 9:46=E2=80=AFAM Matthias Schiffer
> > <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com> wrote:
> > >=20
> > > Conversion to actually use regmap does not seem useful for this drive=
r,
> > > as regmap can't properly represent separate read-only and write-only
> > > registers at the same address, but we can at least match the API to m=
ake
> > > the code clearer.
> > >=20
> > > No functional change intended.
> > >=20
> > > Fixes: b868db94a6a7 ("gpio: tqmx86: Add GPIO from for this IO control=
ler")
> >=20
> > This is not a fix.
>=20
> Agreed.
>=20
> I'm somewhat conflicted by this patch. It is a step towards using
> regmap, but then says regmap does not make sense. So why make that
> step?
>=20
> Changing the order of parameters like this seems like it is will make
> back porting bug fixes harder, unless all supported versions are
> changed, which is why fixes make sense. Does the compiler at least
> issue a warning if the parameters are used the wrong way around?
>=20
> Overall, i'm leaning towards just dropping it.
>=20
> 	 Andrew


Okay, will drop this patch.

Matthias