On 10/06/13 10:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:00:19PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>
>>> +int regmap_field_write(struct regmap_field *field, unsigned int val)
>>> +{
>>> + int field_bits;
>>> + unsigned int reg_mask;
>>> + field_bits = field->msb - field->lsb + 1;
>>>
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:00:19PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > +int regmap_field_write(struct regmap_field *field, unsigned int val)
> > +{
> > + int field_bits;
> > + unsigned int reg_mask;
> > + field_bits = field->msb - field->lsb + 1;
> > + reg_mask = ((BIT(field_bits) - 1) <<
On 09/06/13 17:00, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> [...]
>> +int regmap_field_write(struct regmap_field *field, unsigned int val)
>> +{
>> +int field_bits;
>> +unsigned int reg_mask;
>> +field_bits = field->msb - field->lsb + 1;
>> +reg_mask = ((BIT(field_bits) - 1) << field->lsb);
>> +
[...]
> +int regmap_field_write(struct regmap_field *field, unsigned int val)
> +{
> + int field_bits;
> + unsigned int reg_mask;
> + field_bits = field->msb - field->lsb + 1;
> + reg_mask = ((BIT(field_bits) - 1) << field->lsb);
> + return regmap_update_bits(field->regmap, fiel
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:41:29PM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> Is it Ok If I send this patch with my "STiH41x SOC support series", as
> we can see the actual usage of this new apis in the follow on patches?
Yes.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Thankyou for reviewing the patch.
On 05/06/13 12:41, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:21:23AM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> I think I'd prefer to see a struct passed in here for the field
> definition - this would make it easier to initialise from static data,
> otherwise people
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:21:23AM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> Is it ok if we rename the regmap_field_init function to
> regmap_field_alloc, as it will make it obvious that its allocating
> memory which should be freed?
> I also thought we could add devm version of it as well.
Yes, that's
On 04/06/13 22:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:58:00PM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
>
>> +#define REGMAP_FIELD_INIT(regmap, reg, lsb, msb) { \
>> +.regmap = regmap, \
>> +.reg = reg, \
>> +
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:58:00PM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> +#define REGMAP_FIELD_INIT(regmap, reg, lsb, msb) { \
> + .regmap = regmap, \
> + .reg = reg, \
> + .lsb = lsb,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 07:31:48AM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> We have pretty much completed reworking the patch-set we sent recently
> for the STiH41x SOC support. We are waiting for your feedback on this patch.
Don't top post and don't send contentless pings; you should generally
allow
Hi Mark,
We have pretty much completed reworking the patch-set we sent recently
for the STiH41x SOC support. We are waiting for your feedback on this patch.
Thanks,
srini
On 28/05/13 15:58, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> From: Srinivas Kandagatla
>
> It is common to access regmap registers at bi
From: Srinivas Kandagatla
It is common to access regmap registers at bit level, using
regmap_update_bits or regmap_read functions, however the end user has to
take care of a mask or shifting. This becomes overhead when such use
cases are high. Having a common function to do this is much convient
12 matches
Mail list logo
