Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: only call custom reg_update_bits() if reg is marked volatile

[Jon Ringle <jonringle@gmail.com>]

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:13 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 11:29:56PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> 
>>> 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.
> 
>> It's applied, it's pushed out to my tree, and therefore this will need to
>> be fixed up with a relative patch of some sort.
> 
> This appears to be an incremental change, not the initial commit which
> you already applied.  I'm asking you to stop applying changes to regmap
> which have not been reviewed.
> 
>> What you don't seem to understand is that my GIT tree is never rebased
>> or mangled because many people depend upon it.  So once a patch is
>> applied, that commit lives on forever.
> 
> I'm not *so* concerned if the patch lives in history, I'm concerned with
> having something I can sensibly review and ideally getting the code into
> my tree.

I would suggest the following course of action:

1) David, revert the following from net-next:
$ git revert 9886ce2b9d4e5a8bb3d78d0f7eff3c0f1ed58d67
$ git revert 04fbfce7a222327b97ca165294ef19f0faa45960
$ git revert 7741c373cf3ea1f5383fa97fb7a640a429d3dd7c

2) Mark, please use the patch titled "[PATCH net-next v3 1/2] regmap:
Allow installing custom". It will apply cleanly to the regmap for-next
branch
3) Once Mark has accepted this patch into the regmap tree, I will make
any adjustments needed to the net-next patch.
4) David should then merge the regmap for-next branch into net-next
5) I will submit a new patch to net-next for the encx24j600 driver
that should build against the regmap changes

Sound like a good plan?

-Jon