Re: snd soc spi read/write

[Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>]

On 08/11/2011 02:33 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:31:06PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> 
> That's not complicated, though - like I'm sure I've said to you before
> it seems like we just need to make the read bit controllable by drivers.
> Some other devices need that too, and a shift of the address also
> (there's one 7 bit address device I saw recently which has the address
> in the top 7 bits of an 8 bit value).
> 

Yes, I think I brought it up during the regmap review.

> Like I say I'm really not happy about adding further non-standard driver
> specifics to the Analog drivers, they're already not the best and they
> don't really seem to be getting much attention from anyone so I'm not
> confident anyone will come along and reverse any temporary bodges.  I'd
> be reasonably happy with something temporary for 3.1 if we already have
> a fix in place for 3.2 but I don't have much confidence that anyone will
> work on that.

So, just switch the ad193x driver to a rbcache.

> 
>> And if we have to add our own read function we could as very well add our own
>> write function which simply reinstates the old caching behavior.
> 
> If the driver needs its own custom I/O it should do both read and write.

We don't need reads if we cache writes. In the old ASoC IO code there wasn't
even SPI read support.

>> In my opinion it would be nice if we could add a register cache base address,
>> which specifies the offset at which the cache-able registers start. For example
>> I have a codec driver in the queue where all non-volatile registers at 0x8000
>> and I don't really want to add 16k of zeros to the driver for the default
>> register cache.
> 
> I don't think it's worth adding a special case like that when fixing the
> more general issues for sparse registers also solves these problems - we
> still need to fix the sparse register maps anyway.  Blocking registers
> together in rbtree (which we do already) means that if you've got one
> block of registers at a massive offset then the block with an offset
> just flops out of the code.

Yes, I had a look at the rbcache the other day. The current code doesn't seem
to be optimal. For example adjacent don't seem to be joined, so for example if
I have 3 registers and write them in the order 0,2,1 I'll still end up with 2
blocks. But that's of course something that can be fixed. And I had almost been
sold on it, if there wasn't the default register issue.

> If we also provide a more compact way of
> representing the defaults that devices with sparse registers can use
> then that problem will go away too.

What do you have in mind for this? An array of pairs of register and value?

- Lars