[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <65607fde-d0e9-0f08-3042-f6a58b760896@baylibre.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 13:49:21 +0200
From: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jramirez@...libre.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] regmap: allow volatile register writes with cached only
read maps
On 05/09/2018 10:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 12:06:09AM +0200, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote:
>> Regmap only allows volatile access to registers when the client
>> supports both reads and writes.
>>
>> This commit bypasses that limitation and enables volatile writes to
>> selected registers while maintaining cached accesses on all reads. For
>> this, the client does not need to configure the reg_read callback.
> I don't understand what voltile access means for write only devices.
> Volatile means that we don't read the cache but go direct to the
> hardware so if we can't read the hardware that's pretty redundant, a
> volatile read that goes to the cache is just a default read.
oops, sorry will try to be a bit more clear with an example.
This patch tries to support a map that provides:
1. only cached reads: (as a consequence every regmap write must succeed).
2. cached writes: do not access the hardware unless the value differs
from what is in the cache already or (3) applies.
3. support for selectable volatile writes: those that will always access
the device no matter what the cache holds.
Something like this:
static const struct regmap_config foo_regmap = {
.reg_write = foo_write_reg,
.reg_bits = 32,
.val_bits = 32,
.reg_stride = 1,
.volatile_reg = foo_volatile_reg,
.max_register = CODEC_ENABLE_DEBUG_CTRL_REG,
.reg_defaults = foo_reg_defaults,
.num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(foo_reg_defaults),
.cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
};
I dont think - I could be wrong- that this is something that we can
support today since the current code seems to require that the regmap is
readable (ie, that it implements reg_read).
But it could also be that I am missing something in my config? This is
why I sent an RFC instead of a PATCH, because I am not 100% sure that I
am not missing something.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists