From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1762043AbcALBxt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:53:49 -0500
Received: from muin.pair.com ([209.68.1.55]:60843 "EHLO muin.pair.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1761795AbcALBxn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:53:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: fsl_ssi: remove register defaults
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>, Xiubo Li <Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <5677107C.60904@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <CAOMZO5C+32Nn6+Nv9KeVrd_Qeso-wEZZNU45G8h+e6LHdMoQYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOMZO5BE7=EdmEyMOq5WH=qv_0H3AGcyyDMJFoemLRJ=O5YLNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160111140038.GC6588@sirena.org.uk>
 <5693B7CC.8000905@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <20160111145430.GE6588@sirena.org.uk> <5693CE21.8010009@tabi.org>
 <20160111161225.GJ6588@sirena.org.uk> <569455AA.4060907@tabi.org>
 <20160112013421.GW6588@sirena.org.uk>
From: Timur Tabi <timur@tabi.org>
Message-ID: <56945CA7.70100@tabi.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:53:43 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:42.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160112013421.GW6588@sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Mark Brown wrote:
> Quite possibly (it'll be more efficient and it's intended for such use
> cases) but as I said in my other reply that then has the issue that it
> implicitly gives default values to all the registers so I'd expect we
> still need to handle the cache initialisation explicitly (or
> alternatively the hardware sync with the cache on startup).

Why does REGCACHE_FLAT assume that all registers have a default value of 
0?  Shouldn't it have the same behavior w.r.t. cache values as 
REGCACHE_RBTREE?