From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com (fllv0016.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5610DA955 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 05:05:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.19.142 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724907922; cv=none; b=I1GjXJMl/7830eEKFtKA0KSpQZvux2WnpJHotg3tsOXA0mylIDE0CnpF/uvyOlJ5EMRDSy8/+WCiW5Ecl4pze81UP1sxAnmaxO0pGlgBgXmJ6J+PmPXJJ8WNvUyNvnXh5I65Vj0cnh+CS70jwiMHz+W2o5ZI1FvzJ4jfq9CWmvo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724907922; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dzmxjCJcIg7wVud16eVJLp6puavhu521F3ruYBtz/ZA=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BewNfHPtnVFkwgIsr2d+YP15HG8iugoDcQtx8t9CpdvfKWMuXnLyZLH12Ki+iNTDhvKAnwZ2n3MrixeMYwBovcvcTEYgW/R6zb8+9/ggXLI0zdVYyHp3BExtbEkGiFGU1SNVvfrUaa4Uag+i19ccmbB7yKuUOZHAt/tbZnMl0pk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=hhbg0CGA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.19.142 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="hhbg0CGA" Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 47T54gn2093143; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:04:42 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1724907882; bh=oh+T8+2cjQsd8WEICvqGPQ5H2HR4Up7D0a50b0F/AIY=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=hhbg0CGAFor9eG1OPBwMoUospQGTu/i4XEs8TaHyzeNRZ41eEdvXwhZBxVOPYZ3e/ czcRAfIQoaLBcAcCKBlB6E04ayY4tE8uhlIUK0jNgfcp+Fud8wgQE24o8CMNMCLQ08 vuhyQxpZa1P7OePS24/IWMbfxyeGPdb4X0WQhG0o= Received: from DFLE104.ent.ti.com (dfle104.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.25]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 47T54gKi010814 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:04:42 -0500 Received: from DFLE104.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.25) by DFLE104.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:04:42 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.250) by DFLE104.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:04:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (uda0133052.dhcp.ti.com [128.247.81.232]) by lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 47T54gKk028762; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:04:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:04:42 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon To: Mark Brown CC: Arnd Bergmann , Lee Jones , , , , , , Jan Dakinevich Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: syscon: Set max_register_is_0 when syscon points to a single register Message-ID: <20240829050442.77v54yjvq44ja2dd@cresting> References: <20240828121008.3066002-1-nm@ti.com> <20240828133229.67bej3utpgrmzr3p@retired> <20240828144434.oydsgflsqy5vibxe@sapling> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 On 21:26-20240828, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 09:44:34AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > > This is a patch for syscon, not regmap. I am a bit confused as to what > > objection beyond the "Fixes" usage (which I can drop > > in a respin) you may have here, will appreciate if you are NAKing the > > patch and on what rationale. > > > I understand that regmap considers the max_register usage entirely > > optional, but syscon does already use it (my patch doesn't introduce > > it). I am just getting syscon to catchup to what regmap already > > provides. > > If you are absolutely confident that all syscon users know how big their > regmap is then modulo the claim that it's a fix for an unrelated patch > which doesn't change the behaviour for these regmaps at all then it's > fine. Thanks for clarifying - I understand now.. I will drop the fixes tag and refresh the patch with appropriate wording - but, to the best of my search[1] ("Absolutely confident" is a pretty strong terminology for any patch ;)) there is expectation of max_registers being enforced.. based on what the driver does today. [1] https://gist.github.com/nmenon/d537096d041fa553565fba7577d2cd24 -> the pattern seems relatively controlled problem that existing code as far as I can see doesn't seem to mis-behave. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D