[PATCH] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from syscon devices

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 01 September 2014 12:25:49 Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 September 2014 08:49:18 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa at samsung.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
> > > > platform device that binds to a dedicated driver. However in certain use
> > > > cases it is desirable to make a device used with another driver a syscon
> > > > interface provider. For example, certain SoCs (e.g. Exynos) contain
> > > > system controller blocks which perform various functions such as power
> > > > domain control, CPU power management, low power mode control, but in
> > > > addition contain certain IP integration glue, such as various signal
> > > > masks, coprocessor power control, etc. In such case, there is a need to
> > > > have a dedicated driver for such system controller but also share
> > > > registers with other drivers. The latter is where the syscon interface
> > > > is helpful.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch decouples syscon object from syscon driver, so that it can be
> > > > registered from any driver in addition to the original "syscon" platform
> > > > driver.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa at samsung.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey at samsung.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > RFC patch [1] was posted by Tomasz Figa. This patch addresses some of
> > > > comments given by Arnd to RFC patch, and further decouples syscon from
> > > > device model. It also gives flexibility of registering with syscon at
> > > > early stage using device_node object.
> > > 
> > > It would be helpful if Arnd gave this revision his blessing (Ack).
> > 
> > I never saw a reason why we don't take this all the way as discussed
> > a few times: Completely remove the dependency of syscon on having
> > a platform driver for it, and make it possible to just call
> > syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() without having to register
> > it first.
> 
> I think this sounds like a good end-state.  Migrating over by
> supporting both methods in this way does sound like the correct thing
> to do though.  Doing so is likely to dramatically reduce the effect on
> current users.

Maybe I'm misreading the patch, but I don't see how it creates a
migration path. What I want to end up with is infrastructure that
lets anybody call syscon_regmap_lookup_by_pdevname or
syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible (if they really need to)
without needing the platform_driver for syscon. That should not
require any form of compatibility layer because to the driver
using it there is no API change.

In contrast, this patch introduces a new of_syscon_{un,}register()
interface that would get removed after the the above has
been implemented, causing extra churn for any driver that also
wants to provide a regmap-like interface.

	Arnd