[PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[phucduc.bui]

From: bui duc phuc <phucduc.bui@gmail.com>

cache_only must be disabled before re-writing the paging selector
registers. Otherwise, _regmap_write() would update only the cache
and return without calling map->reg_write(), leaving the selector
register on the hardware unwritten and out of sync with the cache.

Signed-off-by: bui duc phuc <phucduc.bui@gmail.com>
---

Note: This patch was created while working on the following patch series:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260713050312.38729-1-phucduc.bui@gmail.com/

 drivers/base/regmap/regcache.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/base/regmap/regcache.c b/drivers/base/regmap/regcache.c
index 96cdae25b9c4..43ee7c6c32d8 100644
--- a/drivers/base/regmap/regcache.c
+++ b/drivers/base/regmap/regcache.c
@@ -406,6 +406,7 @@ int regcache_sync(struct regmap *map)
 	unsigned int i;
 	const char *name;
 	bool bypass;
+	bool cache_only;
 	struct rb_node *node;
 
 	if (WARN_ON(map->cache_type == REGCACHE_NONE))
@@ -455,6 +456,9 @@ int regcache_sync(struct regmap *map)
 	 * have gone out of sync, force writes of all the paging
 	 * registers.
 	 */
+	cache_only = map->cache_only;
+	map->cache_only = false;
+
 	rb_for_each(node, NULL, &map->range_tree, rbtree_all) {
 		struct regmap_range_node *this =
 			rb_entry(node, struct regmap_range_node, node);
@@ -472,6 +476,8 @@ int regcache_sync(struct regmap *map)
 		}
 	}
 
+	map->cache_only = cache_only;
+
 	map->unlock(map->lock_arg);
 
 	regmap_async_complete(map);
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 616 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 02:30:58PM +0700, phucduc.bui@gmail.com wrote:
> From: bui duc phuc <phucduc.bui@gmail.com>
> 
> cache_only must be disabled before re-writing the paging selector
> registers. Otherwise, _regmap_write() would update only the cache
> and return without calling map->reg_write(), leaving the selector
> register on the hardware unwritten and out of sync with the cache.

No, any access to the hardware is buggy - the whole point of cache only
mode is that we can't access the hardware.  The paging register is part
of the context that needs to be rewritten when resyncing the cache.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[Bui Duc Phuc]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the feedback.

>
> No, any access to the hardware is buggy - the whole point of cache only
> mode is that we can't access the hardware.  The paging register is part
> of the context that needs to be rewritten when resyncing the cache.

To provide some context: I based this patch on your previous commit here:

https://patchew.org/linux/20231026-regmap-fix-selector-sync-v1-1-633ded82770d@kernel.org/

Reading that commit, I mistakenly understood that we must enforce
the hardware writes here at all costs. However, based on your explanation,
I see that I misunderstood the architectural intent.

Just to clarify for my understanding: does this mean regcache_sync()
is strictly
expected to be called only after cache_only has been set to false?

If so, I will drop this patch.

Best regards,
Phuc

Re: [PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 463 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:07:13PM +0700, Bui Duc Phuc wrote:

> Just to clarify for my understanding: does this mean regcache_sync()
> is strictly
> expected to be called only after cache_only has been set to false?

Yes, calling regcache_sync() with the cache enabled is not particularly
sensible - it basically exists to put all the changes made while a
device was in cache only mode (including due to suspend which is the
main case for that) onto the device.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[Bui Duc Phuc]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the clarification.

>
> Yes, calling regcache_sync() with the cache enabled is not particularly
> sensible - it basically exists to put all the changes made while a
> device was in cache only mode (including due to suspend which is the
> main case for that) onto the device.

That was actually my understanding as well. Initially, I was considering a
patch that would make it unnecessary to explicitly call
regcache_cache_only(map, true) again when regcache_sync() fails.

The idea was roughly:
1. check cache_only at the beginning of regcache_sync(), and if it is
    already true, emit a warning and return immediately;
2.  if regcache_sync() fails, automatically restore cache_only = true
     before returning.

However, after reviewing the existing users of regcache_sync(), I found
that there are several drivers that call regcache_sync() without first calling
regcache_cache_only(map, false). That made me think such a change
could break existing users, so I decided not to pursue that approach.

If the intended usage is indeed that regcache_cache_only(map, false) should
always be set before regcache_sync() is ever used, then I'm happy to revisit
this approach and also prepare follow-up patches for the drivers that don't
currently follow that pattern.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether that would be the right direction.

Best regards,
Phuc

Re: [PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 09:59:46PM +0700, Bui Duc Phuc wrote:

> However, after reviewing the existing users of regcache_sync(), I found
> that there are several drivers that call regcache_sync() without first calling
> regcache_cache_only(map, false). That made me think such a change
> could break existing users, so I decided not to pursue that approach.

> If the intended usage is indeed that regcache_cache_only(map, false) should
> always be set before regcache_sync() is ever used, then I'm happy to revisit
> this approach and also prepare follow-up patches for the drivers that don't
> currently follow that pattern.

You might not bother setting cache only in the suspend/resume path if
you know nothing else from the driver will touch the device until resume
is completed, something else might block anything that would try to
write.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] regcache: disable cache_only before rewriting paging registers

[Bui Duc Phuc]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the explanation.

>
> You might not bother setting cache only in the suspend/resume path if
> you know nothing else from the driver will touch the device until resume
> is completed, something else might block anything that would try to
> write.

Going back to the original motivation for this patch, I'm trying to better
understand the intended semantics of regcache_sync().

------------------
if (!map->cache_bypass && !map->defer_caching) {
    ret = regcache_write(map, reg, val);
    if(ret != 0)
           return ret;
    if (map->cache_only) {
           map->cache_dirty = true;
           return 0;
    }
}

ret = map->reg_write(context, reg, val);
----------------------


As described in the commit message, if regcache_sync() is called while
cache_only is still enabled, it can return success even though the cache
and the hardware are still out of sync, with cache_dirty remaining true.

From the caller's perspective, that seems like a successful synchronization
even though no synchronization actually occurred.

From your explanation, I understand that some drivers intentionally do
not use cache_only in their suspend/resume paths because another
mechanism guarantees that no register accesses can occur while the
device is suspended.

If that's the case, then it seems that neither of these approaches would
be appropriate:
1. Automatically clearing cache_only before writing the selector register.
2. Making regcache_sync() reject calls when cache_only is still enabled.

Would it then be correct to understand that calling regcache_sync() while
cache_only is still enabled is simply considered incorrect API usage,
and that in such a case the responsibility lies with the caller, rather than
regcache_sync() itself ?
If so, would it make sense to document this requirement explicitly,
or perhaps emit a warning when regcache_sync() is called while
cache_only is still enabled?

Best regards,
Phuc