Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: support for MAX10 BMC Security Engine

[Russ Weight]

On 10/7/20 12:00 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020, Russ Weight wrote:
>
>> Add macros and definitions required by the MAX10 BMC
>> Security Engine driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2:
>>   - These functions and macros were previously distributed among
>>     the patches that needed them. They are now grouped together
>>     in a single patch containing changes to the Intel MAX10 BMC
>>     driver.
>>   - Added DRBL_ prefix to some definitions
>>   - Some address definitions were moved here from the .c files that
>>     use them.
>> ---
>>  include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h | 134 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 134 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h b/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h
>> index c8ef2f1654a4..880f907302eb 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/intel-m10-bmc.h
>> @@ -13,6 +13,9 @@
>>   * m10bmc_raw_read - read m10bmc register per addr
>> + * m10bmc_raw_bulk_read - bulk read max10 registers per addr
>> + * m10bmc_raw_bulk_write - bulk write max10 registers per addr
>> + * m10bmc_raw_update_bits - update max10 register per addr
>>   * m10bmc_sys_read - read m10bmc system register per offset
>> + * m10bmc_sys_update_bits - update max10 system register per offset
>>   */
> FWIW, I *hate* abstraction for the sake of abstraction.
>
> Please just use the Regmap API in-place instead.
>
I was following the discussion on the Max10 BMC driver to determine which way to go:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=159964043207829&w=2

My understanding was that the existing function wrappers were accepted because:

(1) The functions are adding dev_err() calls that would have to be replicated
for each call if we don't create a new function.
(2) The _sys_ macros are adding a base address offset, which facilitates
sharing code between multiple devices (although only the n3000 is supported with
the current patches).

Would you prefer that we handle these on a case by case basis? And only provide
wrappers for the ones that have high usage?

- Russ