From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757294Ab1KPRMR (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:12:17 -0500 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:40684 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753217Ab1KPRMP (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:12:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:12:13 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Lars-Peter Clausen Cc: Dimitris Papastamos , Jonathan Cameron , Michael Hennerich , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, device-drivers-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, drivers@analog.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] regmap: Check if a register is writable instead of readable in regcache_read Message-ID: <20111116171213.GR29986@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1321457302-8724-1-git-send-email-lars@metafoo.de> <1321457302-8724-5-git-send-email-lars@metafoo.de> <20111116161631.GK29986@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4EC3E619.70503@metafoo.de> <20111116163812.GM29986@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4EC3EA61.2000705@metafoo.de> <20111116165622.GP29986@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4EC3EE32.2090007@metafoo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EC3EE32.2090007@metafoo.de> X-Cookie: You will be awarded some great honor. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:09:06PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 11/16/2011 05:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > No, really - just do something legible and robust. For example, teach > > regmap_readable() about the cache. > Doesn't make much sense. We call regmap_readable from regcache_read, which > is only called if we use a cache. So if we let regmap_readable return true > in case we use a cache it will always be true in regcache_read and we can > drop the check entirely. We should at least check that we actually have a cached value there - the cache is sparse after all.