Hi Arnd On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:41 PM Baolin Wang <baolin.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:19 PM Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:14 PM Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:05 PM Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Arnd and Lee, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:13 PM Baolin Wang > > > > > > > <baolin.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some platforms such as Spreadtrum platform, define a special > > > > > > > > method to > > > > > > > > update bits of the registers instead of read-modify-write, > > > > > > > > which means > > > > > > > > we should use a physical regmap bus to define the > > > > > > > > reg_update_bits() > > > > > > > > operation instead of the MMIO regmap bus. Thus we can register > > > > > > > > a new > > > > > > > > physical regmap bus into syscon core to support this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any comments for this patch? Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. I'm not accepting it, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd rather you duplicate the things you need from > > > > > > of_syscon_register() > > > > > > in your own driver than taint this one. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments and I can understand your concern. But we > > > > > still want to use the standard syscon APIs in syscon.c, which means we > > > > > still need insert an callback or registration or other similar methods > > > > > to support vendor specific regmap bus. Otherwise we should invent some > > > > > similar syscon APIs in our vendor syscon driver, like > > > > > sprd_syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle/sprd_syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible. > > > > > > > > So long as the generic driver stays generic. Providing a registration > > > > function sounds cleaner than tainting the code with vendor specifics. > > > > > > So seems my V1 patch set [1] was on the direction as you suggested, > > > but Arnd did not like that. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1226161/ > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1226162/ > > > > I don't often disagree with Arnd, but in this instance I think a > > registration function which allows vendor spin-offs to use the generic > > API is better than tainting the generic driver by adding vendor > > specific #ifery/code to it. > > > > Your original idea seems more palatable to me. > > OK, thanks for sharing your opinion. Let's see what Arnd's opinion > before I send out new version.
Do yo have any comments about how to add new bits updating method? Can I re-send my v1 patch set [1]? Thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1226161/ https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1226162/ -- Baolin Wang