Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Fix pincfg

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:51 AM Horatiu Vultur
<horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The 07/09/2022 00:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:17 PM Colin Foster
> > <colin.foster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 09:55:10PM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:

Please, remove unneeded context when replying!

...

> > > > -             .max_register = 32,
> > >
> > > What happens in /sys/kernel/debug/regmap/*-pincfg/{range,registers} when
> > > there's no max register?
> >
> > Good question!
>
> If .max_register is missing then I got the following:
>
> # cd /sys/kernel/debug/regmap/e2004064.pinctrl-pincfg/
> # cat range
> 0-0
> # cat registers
> 0: 00000005

This is effectively a regression.

> > > Should it be this?
> > >
> > > struct regmap_config regmap_config = {
> > >     ...
> > > };
> > > regmap_config.max_register = info->desc->npins * regmap_config.reg_stride;
> > >
> > > >               .name = "pincfg",
> > > >       };
> >
> > If regmap configuration may be const, I would prefer to have a
> > hardcoded value and different configuration based on the chip, but if
> > it's not feasible, then this could suffice.
>
> What about if we do something like:
>
> const struct regmap_config regmap_config = {
>     ...
>     .max_register = info->desc->npins * 4,
>     ...
> };
>
> This is based on what Colin suggested only that we keep the const.

As long as it's const, I like it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko