[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200409104802.GB5399@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:48:02 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@...il.com>
Cc: lee.jones@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de, orsonzhai@...il.com,
zhang.lyra@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mfd: syscon: Add reg_update_bits() callback
support
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 04:57:57PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> --- a/include/linux/regmap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/regmap.h
> @@ -340,6 +340,8 @@ struct regmap_access_table {
> * read operation on a bus such as SPI, I2C, etc. Most of the
> * devices do not need this.
> * @reg_write: Same as above for writing.
> + * @reg_update_bits: Optional, should only be provided for devices whose update
> + * operation cannot be represented as read and write.
> * @fast_io: Register IO is fast. Use a spinlock instead of a mutex
> * to perform locking. This field is ignored if custom lock/unlock
> * functions are used (see fields lock/unlock of struct regmap_config).
> @@ -416,6 +418,8 @@ struct regmap_config {
>
> int (*reg_read)(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int *val);
> int (*reg_write)(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val);
> + int (*reg_update_bits)(void *context, unsigned int reg,
> + unsigned int mask, unsigned int val);
This is fine, we already have this operation for buses, but why is this
munged in with the MFD patch?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists