[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150812123412.GG19600@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:34:12 +0200
From: Markus Pargmann <mpa@...gutronix.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] regmap: _regmap_raw_read: Add handling of busses
without bus->read()
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:27:07PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:12:36PM +0200, Markus Pargmann wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * There are busses that do not have a read function as it is optional.
> > + * Use their reg_read function instead if the requested number of bytes
> > + * is correct.
> > + */
> > + if (!map->bus->read) {
> > + /*
> > + * bus_reg_read() does not support reading values that are not
> > + * exactly the size of format.val_bytes
> > + */
> > + if (val_len != map->format.val_bytes)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + return _regmap_bus_reg_read(map, reg, val);
> > + }
>
> No, this makes no sense - if the device doesn't have a read operation
> then it doesn't support a raw data stream and hence can't support raw
> access sensibly. Callers that want to access a lot of registers at once
> without knowing what the wire format for the device is should be using
> the bulk or multi interfaces.
Yes okay. Then I will reduce this patch to the following and put it
into regmap_read() instead?
if (!map->bus->read) {
return -EINVAL;
Is -EINVAL the right thing to return or would you prefer -ENOTSUPP?
Thanks,
Markus
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists