Re: [PATCH 15/49] regmap-irq: Change the behavior of mask_writeonly

[Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com>]

Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:08 PM Aidan MacDonald
> <aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No drivers currently use mask_writeonly, and in its current form
>> it seems a bit misleading. When set, mask registers will be
>> updated with regmap_write_bits() instead of regmap_update_bits(),
>> but regmap_write_bits() still does a read-modify-write under the
>> hood. It's not a write-only operation.
>>
>> Performing a simple regmap_write() is probably more useful, since
>> it can be used for chips that have separate set & clear registers
>> for controlling mask bits. Such registers are normally volatile
>> and read as 0, so avoiding a register read minimizes bus traffic.
>
> Reading your explanations and the code, I would rather think about
> fixing the regmap_write_bits() to be writeonly op.

That's impossible without special hardware support.

> Otherwise it's unclear what's the difference between
> regmap_write_bits() vs. regmap_update_bits().

This was not obvious to me either. They're the same except in how they
issue the low-level write op -- regmap_update_bits() will only do the
write if the new value differs from the current one. regmap_write_bits()
will always do a write, even if the new value is the same.

I think the problem is lack of documentation. I only figured this out
by reading the implementation.

>>         if (d->chip->mask_writeonly)
>> -               return regmap_write_bits(d->map, reg, mask, val);
>> +               return regmap_write(d->map, reg, val & mask);
>>         else
>>                 return regmap_update_bits(d->map, reg, mask, val);

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel