Re: [PATCH V1] regmap: Support for caching in reg_raw_write()

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

On 02/10/2012 01:14 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:01:26PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion it makes more sense to introduce a regmap_bulk_write function
>> for this. regmap_raw_write was not really meant to write registers but
> 
> This isn't exclusive to that, I think Laxman planned to send a patch
> doing that on top of this one which would be what most users would end
> up using.
> 
>> rather binary blobs, like firmware. Also this keeps things consistent with
>> the read part of the regmap API.
> 
> See the previous discussion on this in the past day or so - bulk_write()
> is more complicated to implement by itself since it's going to end up
> boling down to a raw_write() internally anyway (as does reg_write()) and
> it seems nicer to just do the right thing if people ask for it.  
>

regmap_write doesn't always go the raw_write path. Also with this approach
we end up formatting the value into the raw format, only to parse it again
in the next step.

Furthermore I don't think it makes sense to cache raw values as the cache
operates on a register level, not on a byte level.