[PATCH v1 1/3] drivers: pinctrl-single: handle different register width

[Simon Glass]

Hi Rayagonda,

+Stephen Warren

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 10:35, Rayagonda Kokatanur
<rayagonda.kokatanur at broadcom.com> wrote:
>
> Add support to use different register read/write api's
> based on register width.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rayagonda Kokatanur <rayagonda.kokatanur at broadcom.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> index 738f5bd636..aed113b083 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
> @@ -10,12 +10,24 @@
>  #include <linux/libfdt.h>
>  #include <asm/io.h>
>
> +/**
> + * struct single_pdata - pinctrl device instance
> + * @base       first configuration register
> + * @offset     index of last configuration register
> + * @mask       configuration-value mask bits
> + * @width      configuration register bit width
> + * @bits_per_mux
> + * @read       register read function to use
> + * @write      register write function to use
> + */
>  struct single_pdata {
>         fdt_addr_t base;        /* first configuration register */
>         int offset;             /* index of last configuration register */
>         u32 mask;               /* configuration-value mask bits */
>         int width;              /* configuration register bit width */
>         bool bits_per_mux;
> +       u32 (*read)(phys_addr_t reg);
> +       void (*write)(u32 val, phys_addr_t reg);

Can't we just have a read & write function with a switch statement?
Why do we need function pointers?

Regards,
Simon