[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/4] regmap: change regmap_init_mem() to take ofnode instead udevice

[Simon Glass]

Hi Masahiro,

On 22 April 2018 at 22:56, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> 2018-04-23 5:10 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>:
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> On 17 April 2018 at 20:38, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com
>
>> wrote:
>>> Currently, regmap_init_mem() takes udevice. This requires the node
>>> has already been associated with a device. It prevents syscon/regmap
>>> from behaving like those in Linux.
>>>
>>> Change the first argumenet to take the device node.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  arch/arm/mach-aspeed/ast2500/sdram_ast2500.c |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/core/regmap.c                        | 11 +++++------
>>>  drivers/core/syscon-uclass.c                 |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/phy/meson-gxl-usb2.c                 |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/phy/meson-gxl-usb3.c                 |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/ram/rockchip/dmc-rk3368.c            |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3188.c          |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk322x.c          |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3288.c          |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3399.c          |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/ram/stm32mp1/stm32mp1_ram.c          |  2 +-
>>>  drivers/reset/reset-meson.c                  |  2 +-
>>>  include/regmap.h                             |  4 ++--
>>>  13 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> Can you please add a simple test for regmap on sandbox?
>>
>
> No.
>
> Please stop this boiler-plate response.
>
> Simple tests for regmap already exist in test/dm/regmap.c
>
> regmap_init_mem() is not a new function, and it is tested
> through other function tests.

Can you please point to that? I don't see anything for sandbox.

>
> You block patches several times before
> by making the contributors say "Sorry, I am busy".
>
>
> I am really busy, but I need to fix the misimplementation
> of syscon for Socionext drivers.
>
> Why should I be annoyed by additional work
> to fix the problem?

Because otherwise I have no idea if the code works, no one will be able to
change it later without potentially breaking it, etc. If people get into
the habit of writing a little test at the same time, it takes very little
extra effort.

I have pour an ENORMOUS amount of time into making testing in U-Boot
better, as has Stephen Warren. We need to continue the effort. I'm sorry
that this adds a little more time to the patch submission process, but we
gain a lot of benefits. Look at all the times we have tried to fix address
translation in U-Boot, or FIT behaviour, when we don't have tests or even a
clear definition of the correct behaviour.

So please try to understand my point of view here. This is not just about
your patch, it is about the future of U-Boot for future users and
contributors.

Regards,
Simon