From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752632AbbJEPiM (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:38:12 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:45277 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752507AbbJEPiJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:38:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:57:22 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: jon@ringle.org Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jon Ringle Message-ID: <20151005145722.GT12635@sirena.org.uk> References: <1444051772-20270-1-git-send-email-jon@ringle.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DnHvQagWhP6kG70s" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1444051772-20270-1-git-send-email-jon@ringle.org> X-Cookie: Walk softly and carry a megawatt laser. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 89.101.192.72 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: only call custom reg_update_bits() if reg is marked volatile X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --DnHvQagWhP6kG70s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 09:29:31AM -0400, jon@ringle.org wrote: > From: Jon Ringle >=20 > The only time that it makes sense to call a custom provided reg_update_bi= ts > function, is the register being updated is one that has volatile bits. > Otherwise, the normal read/modify/write cycle (where the read is likely to > be free from the cache) will do just fine. This should keep the reg cache > intact, since volatile registers won't get cached anyway. Dave, to be clear please do *not* apply this patch at least for the time being - I've not reviewed it or the one from Thursday that you applied this morning. --DnHvQagWhP6kG70s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWEo/MAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQiBcH/1LyHRkVmLO9m9OxnbYg5feW LTWqlSekmJELp6HoWtb6tQdw9ZCqcqbQAHXbyPT5/bj/eK8d7ikkHX8t9sK8u/nr 5vWw8IkEm/7qhh/AxmYy+1wRWDB0RoxLtZA8xypVI5ZKnAV56plBylBFZDG5nExc uPuu7ZmDWjC7mJN6uSYiDKM0IX+E8NCudkEwT924Kslf1AJgfJ+hIAflEiMVCyMy U3TqljoOaHkehqBVb7Z5kD//uwK1YLmqpu0AbFdIK7b0kjKdUNY92Lqo+fdMFuvI EDPsf0aiu4q7RUY79GNlRYVbk+IZtC7EN+WeZOWts4uk93nrM7o1GMk+beYbTYg= =plO5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DnHvQagWhP6kG70s--