Hi,

Le lun., nov. 8 2021 at 11:52:20 +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller 
[off-list ref] a écrit :

Hi Paul,

quoted

quoted

 Am 08.11.2021 um 10:37 schrieb Paul Cercueil 
[off-list ref]:

 Well, it was atomic: "add jz4780+hdmi functionality" or not. Now 
we separate into "preparation for adding jz4780" and "really 
adding". Yes, you can split atoms into quarks...

 And that's how it should be done. Lots of small atomic patches are 
much easier to review than a few big patches.

I doubt that in this case especially as it has nothing to do with 
jz4780...

It has nothing to do with JZ4780 and that's exactly why it should be a 
separate patch.

But I have a proposal for a better solution at the end of this mail.

quoted

quoted

quoted

 Note that you can do even better, set the .max_register field 
according to the memory resource you get from DTS. Have a look at 
the pinctrl driver which does exactly this.

 That is an interesting idea. Although I don't see where
 
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c#L4171
 does make use of the memory resource from DTS. It just reads two 
values from the ingenic_chip_info instead of one I do read from 
soc_info.

 It overrides the .max_register from a static regmap_config instance.

To be precise: it overrides .max_register of a copy of a static 
regmap_config instance (which has .max_register = 0).

quoted

 You can do the same,

We already do the same...

quoted

 calculating the .max_register from the memory resource you get from 
DT.

I can't see any code in pinctrl-ingenic.c getting the memory resource 
that from DT. It calculates it from the ingenic_chip_info tables 
inside the driver code but not DT.

quoted

 I'm sure you guys can figure it out.

Ah, we have to figure out. You are not sure yourself how to do it? 
And it is *not* exactly like the pinctrl driver (already) does? 
Please give precise directions in reviews and not vague research 
homework. Our time is also valuable. Sorry if I review your reviews...

Anyways I think you roughly intend (untested):

	struct resource *r;

	r = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
	regmap_config.max_register = r.end - r.start;

Replace the "devm_platform_ioremap_resource" with 
"devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource" to get a pointer to the 
resource.

Then the .max_register should be (r.end - r.start - 4) I think.

And lose the aggressivity. It's not going to get you anywhere, 
especially since I'm the one who decides whether or not I should merge 
your patches. You want your code upstream, that's great, but it's your 
responsability to get it to shape so that it's eventually accepted.

But I wonder how that could work at all (despite adding code 
execution time) with:

Code execution time? ...

e.g. jz4770.dtsi:

	lcd: lcd-controller@13050000 {
		compatible = "ingenic,jz4770-lcd";
		reg = <0x13050000 0x300>;

or jz4725b.dtsi:

	lcd: lcd-controller@13050000 {
		compatible = "ingenic,jz4725b-lcd";
		reg = <0x13050000 0x1000>;

So max_register becomes 0x300 or 0x1000 but not

#define JZ_REG_LCD_SIZE1	0x12c
	.max_reg = JZ_REG_LCD_SIZE1,

And therefore wastes a lot of regmap memory.

"regmap memory"? ...

Do you want this? DTS should not be reduced (DTS should be kept as 
stable as possible), since the reg property describes address mapping 
- not how many bytes are really used by registers or how big a cache 
should be allocated (cache allocation size requirements are not 
hardware description).

The DTS should list the address and size of the register area. If your 
last register is at address 0x12c and there's nothing above, then the 
size in DTS should be 0x130.

But here are good news:

I have a simpler and less invasive proposal. We keep the 
devm_regmap_init_mmio code as is and just increase its .max_register 
from JZ_REG_LCD_SIZE1 to JZ_REG_LCD_PCFG when introducing the jz4780. 
This wastes a handful bytes for all non-jz4780 chips but less than 
using the DTS memory region size. And is less code (no entry in 
soc_info tables, no modifyable copy) and faster code execution than 
all other proposals.

This is then just a single-line change when introducing the jz4780. 
And no "preparation for adding jz4780" patch is needed at all. No 
patch to split out for separate review.

Let's go this way to get it eventually finalized. Ok?

No.

Cheers,
-Paul