Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] gpio: i8255: Migrate to regmap API

[William Breathitt Gray]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:07:42AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 02:52:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 08:55:53PM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > >  drivers/gpio/Kconfig            |   2 +
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c | 397 ++++++++++-------------------
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-gpio-mm.c     | 151 +++--------
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-i8255.c       | 429 +++++++++++---------------------
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-i8255.h       |  80 +++---
> > 
> > Can we actually split this to a few steps:
> >  - providing gpio-i8255-regmap
> >  - providing gpio-mm-regmap
> >  - converting the driver
> >  - removing not used modules (one by one)
> > ?
> > 
> > In this case if any regression somewhere appears, we can always perform a
> > (semi-)revert for a certain driver.
> 
> Sure, I can split the regmap_irq migration for 104-dio-48e into a
> separate precursor patch to reduce the amount of changes we see here and
> provide a revert path for these IRQ changes. I can do a similar change
> for 104-idi-48 as well.
> 
> The rest of the changes for 104-dio-48 and gpio-mm are essentially just
> the regmap configurations, so the patch will be largely identical even
> if we migrate gpio-i8255 to regmap API first before migrating again to
> the gpio_regmap in a second patch.

Sorry, I realize now that you meant to split the i8255 gpio_regmap
additions to their own patch, perform the driver migrations in the own
respective patches, and then finally remove the dangling unused i8255
functions and structures. Yes I think that would make for a cleaner
patch series so I'll split it up that way.

William Breathitt Gray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature