On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:56:37AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 19:06 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Note also that we already have quite extensive helpers for this sort
> > of
> > stuff in the regulator API which I sense may have been involved in
> > this
> > implementation

> You sense well xD

If you're factoring stuff out of an existing implementation it'd be good
to explicitly do that - this both shows where things came from and also
means that you can show that the existing user works with the new code
which is good.

> But another option - which I thought only now - would be to see if
> current regulator implementation could be re-named to more generic and
> placed under some more generic component (I thought of regmap but as
> you pointed out this is equally usefull for devices connected to memory
> mapped buses - so maybe under lib - if static inline functions in a
> header are not a good option). I just have a feeling that the linear-
> ranges is currently kind of embedded in the code which is internal to
> regulator framework so it is probably not easily extracted from
> regulator code?

It is a bit but I think that's solvable with some refactoring in place
(eg, pushing things into a smaller struct embedded in the main regulator
one and then moving them out).  I might look at it myself if nobody else
gets to it first...

> So if we do not start pulling the range code out of regulator framework
> (for now at least) - and if we do not place this under regmap - then I
> can drop you out of the recipient list for this charger driver in order
> to not pollute your inbox ;) How do you feel Mark, do you want to be
> following this series?

Well, if there's a refactoring out of the regulator code going on I'll
need to look at that anyway.