On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 09:08:27AM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Mark Brown > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:54:14PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> >> + bool cache_registers; > > I'm afraid I don't quite understand this... > From my understanding of the code it is done because the caching is > handled differently for cases when format_write() and format_reg(), > format_val() are provided. > In case of 'format_write' the regcache_write() is called in > _regmap_write() directly whereas when format_reg(), format_val() are > there _regmap_write() calls _regmap_raw_write() which in turn calls > regcache_write(). If I remove that variable and corresponding check > then regcache_write() would be called twice in the case of > format_reg(), format_val(), when _regmap_write() is called, would it > not? I apologise if I miss something obvious and that is not a case(or > issue). OK, in this case the variable is confusingly named - it has no effect on if we're going to cache, it's about where we cache. What's really driving the decision here is a combination of having block I/O support (this was done this way to support cache for block writes) and having the ability to read (which is what limits us). Not sure I can think of a good name right now though... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
