Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:33:01 +0530 | | From | Laxman Dewangan <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V1 1/2] mfd: tps65910: use regmap for device register access. |
| |
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 07:28 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 07:04:14PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Wednesday 08 February 2012 06:37 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> Yes, though bulk_write() is tricky as it's *really* unclear what it >>> should take as an argument - should it be raw register size (in which >>> case it's just raw_write()) or should it be ints (in which case it needs >>> to repack the data too)? I suspect ints but I'm really not convinced >>> there's much use case for this. >> * @map: Register map to write to >> * @reg: Initial register to write to >> * @val: Block of data to be written, laid out for direct transmission to the >> * device >> * @@val_count: Number of registers to write >> int regmap_bulk_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, void *val, >> size_t val_count) >> only support if map->format.parse_val not null like bulk_read. >> It will just do the regamp_raw_write() if all regs are volatile >> otherwise make the unsigned int from the val by function >> map->format.parse_val for separate write for each register. > But that's just raw_write(), there's no benefit to the additional API > call. > raw_write supported for the volatile register only. I require an api which can work for volatile as well as non-volatile registers. Either extend raw_write to support both cases (remove warning and handle properly) or add bulk_write.
I think as bulk_read is there and so having bulk_write on same line should be OK.
> * Unknown Key > * 0x6E30FDDD
|  |