[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <643e5dd9-2d1f-4cc7-90e0-22e4a07ecd0f@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:21:38 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] regmap: force update_bits() to write to HW when reg
is volatile
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:36:51PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 4/28/23 14:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think you're looking for regmap_write_bits() here.
> Yes. Thanks for pointing this out to me. This is the functionality I
> searched for.
> However, my question really was if the regmap_update_bits() (and
> regmap_set_bits() / regmap_clear_bits()) should automatically work as
> regmap_write_bits() for volatile registers. I'll take your answer as
> "no" - and try to remember just use regmap_write_bits() with volatile
> registers which may require forcing writing the value even when it is
> not changed. Thanks!
Yeah, like you said in your commit there are cases where suppressing the
write is still useful - you might have some bits that are volatile and
some not or you might have something like a pattern where the hardware
can set bits and the host writes 1 to clear. One common thing is to
have read only status bits mixed in with normal read/write bits.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists