[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54F9E597.2050301@metafoo.de>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 18:36:23 +0100
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Using regmap_update_bits to update a write only register
On 03/06/2015 06:26 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
[...]
> I can reproduce the problem with:
>
> static struct reg_default xxx_reg_defaults[] = {
> { XXX_REG_CTRL0, 0x00 },
> { XXX_REG_CTRL1, 0x00 },
> { XXX_REG_STATUS, 0x00 },
> };
>
> but, not if the reg default definition is:
>
> static struct reg_default xxx_reg_defaults[] = {
> { XXX_REG_STATUS, 0x00 },
> { XXX_REG_CTRL0, 0x00 },
> { XXX_REG_CTRL1, 0x00 },
> };
>
> Is this normal?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
It might be that there is a bug when growing a rbblock to the left. It
probably went unnoticed because everybody has their reg defaults ordered in
ascending order.
Try to put a few debug printks into regcache_rbtree_write() and
regcache_rbtree_insert_to_block() to see what exactly is going on when a new
register is inserted into the block. How do base_reg and top_reg change.
- Lars
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists