Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:02 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add "no-bus" option for regmap API |
| |
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:47:18AM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
This looks really good, the issues and questions I have below are pretty detailed.
> - int (*reg_read)(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int *val); > - int (*reg_write)(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val); > + int (*reg_read)(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int *val); > + int (*reg_write)(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val);
I'd be inclined to just do this in the initial refectoring patches rather than rerefactoring here.
> + if (!bus || !bus->fast_io) { > mutex_init(&map->mutex); > map->lock = regmap_lock_mutex; > map->unlock = regmap_unlock_mutex; > + } else { > + spin_lock_init(&map->spinlock); > + map->lock = regmap_lock_spinlock; > + map->unlock = regmap_unlock_spinlock;
It's not immediately obvious to me that no-bus should be forced to use mutexes - is there any great reason for tying the two together? I'd add a flag to allow no-bus devices to choose, possibly as part of a separate "bus" configuration thing that gets configured with a separate init function.
> + if (!bus) { > + map->cache_registers = true; > + goto skip_format_initialization; > + } else { > + map->reg_read = _regmap_bus_read; > + }
Not sure I understand cache_registers here. Why has this flag been added?
> + * @reg_read: Optional callback that if filled will be used to perform > + * all the reads from the registers. > + * @reg_write: Optional callback that if filled will be used to perform > + * all the writes to the registers.
I'd probably add some comment about not using this in conjunction with SPI or I2C. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |