From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757138Ab2BHNfy (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:35:54 -0500 Received: from hqemgate04.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.35]:7636 "EHLO hqemgate04.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789Ab2BHNfx (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:35:53 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:35:50 -0800 Message-ID: <4F3279D6.4000009@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:04:14 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: "sameo@linux.intel.com" , "lrg@ti.com" , "jedu@slimlogic.co.uk" , "gg@slimlogic.co.uk" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/2] mfd: tps65910: use regmap for device register access. References: <1328697985-22504-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20120208114120.GF3120@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F32676F.1010305@nvidia.com> <20120208130726.GB5943@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20120208130726.GB5943@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 08 February 2012 06:37 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:45:43PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >> I did not wanted to make the list of register in core driver. Wanted >> to leave the decision to the sub-devices driver where they need to >> enable cache based on their requirements. >> Do you think that the register list (although it is used in the >> regulator driver) should be in the core file? If this is allow then >> I can make the static table in core driver. > Yes, it should be in the core driver. > Fine, it will much simple in this case. > >> This function added because there is no bulk_write function in core >> driver which supports the non-volatile in the list. Even if number >> of bytes read is 1. >> Should we move the above logic to core driver? > This is the core driver? If you mean the regmap core then yes. > Yes, change regmap core driver i.e. regmap.c >> - If any of the register is non-volatile in bulk write then split >> the transfer into the byte-wise/short-wise/long-wise >> (format.val_bytes) based on register width? >> - If all register is volatile the uses the regmap_raw_write() >> Does it sounds reasonable? If yes then I can move this code to >> regmap.c as regmap_bulk_write() i.e. new function. > Yes, though bulk_write() is tricky as it's *really* unclear what it > should take as an argument - should it be raw register size (in which > case it's just raw_write()) or should it be ints (in which case it needs > to repack the data too)? I suspect ints but I'm really not convinced > there's much use case for this. > * @map: Register map to write to * @reg: Initial register to write to * @val: Block of data to be written, laid out for direct transmission to the * device * @@val_count: Number of registers to write int regmap_bulk_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, void *val, size_t val_count) only support if map->format.parse_val not null like bulk_read. It will just do the regamp_raw_write() if all regs are volatile otherwise make the unsigned int from the val by function map->format.parse_val for separate write for each register. > * Unknown Key > * 0x6E30FDDD