Re: [PATCH 6/6 v3] regmap: Incorporate the regcache core into regmap

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

> [...]
> @@ -321,6 +333,18 @@ int regmap_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&map->lock);
>  
> +	if (!map->cache_bypass) {
> +		ret = regcache_write(map, reg, val);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			mutex_unlock(&map->lock);
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +		if (map->cache_only) {
> +			mutex_unlock(&map->lock);
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}
> +

Would it make sense to move this into _regmap_write ? In that case the code
wouldn't have to be duplicated in regmap_update_bits and as a bonus it wouldn't
have to deal with the mutex either.

>  	ret = _regmap_write(map, reg, val);
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&map->lock);
> @@ -422,6 +446,14 @@ int regmap_read(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int *val)
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&map->lock);
>  
> +	if (!map->cache_bypass) {
> +		ret = regcache_read(map, reg, val);
> +		if (!ret) {
> +			mutex_unlock(&map->lock);
> +			return 0;
> +		}

So in case regmap_readable is not true for this register regcache_read will
return -EIO and we'll fallback to an uncached read. This doesn't make sense in
my opinion. Or what are the except semantics regmap_readable supposed to be?

> +	}
> +
>  	ret = _regmap_read(map, reg, val);
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&map->lock);

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/