On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:30:53PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 01.02.2016 22:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, that's completely broken. We can't do a raw read from a regmap that
> > doesn't offer raw access and we shouldn't pretend to do so. If the
> > caller is capable of substituting a
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
wrote:
> So can regcache initialization be changed to use register by register read
> in case raw read fails?
>
> Since other option for drivers like SSI which are memory mapped and
> don't offer ability to reset their register values to default
On 01.02.2016 22:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 05:58:06PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>
>> Looks like a possible solution would be to change
>> regmap_raw_read() to do read using _regmap_read in
>> case the cache is bypassed and there is no ->read
>> callback defined for re
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 05:58:06PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> Looks like a possible solution would be to change
> regmap_raw_read() to do read using _regmap_read in
> case the cache is bypassed and there is no ->read
> callback defined for regmap implementation.
No, that's completely bro
On 01.02.2016 13:25, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 01.02.2016 13:13, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>> Hi Maciej,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
>> wrote:
>>> Is regmap patch from
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2161934.html
>>> applied to the tested tree?
>>
>> Yes,
On 01.02.2016 13:13, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
> wrote:
>> Is regmap patch from
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2161934.html
>> applied to the tested tree?
>
> Yes, linux-next 20160201 contains this patch.
Hmm, I will tr
Hi Maciej,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
wrote:
> Is regmap patch from
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2161934.html
> applied to the tested tree?
Yes, linux-next 20160201 contains this patch.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing lis
Hi Fabio,
On 01.02.2016 13:05, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
> wrote:
>> There is no guarantee that on fsl_ssi module load
>> SSI registers will have their power-on-reset values.
>>
>> In fact, if the driver is reloaded the values in
>
Hi Maciej,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
wrote:
> There is no guarantee that on fsl_ssi module load
> SSI registers will have their power-on-reset values.
>
> In fact, if the driver is reloaded the values in
> registers will be whatever they were set to previously.
>
> Howe
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
wrote:
> There is no guarantee that on fsl_ssi module load
> SSI registers will have their power-on-reset values.
>
> In fact, if the driver is reloaded the values in
> registers will be whatever they were set to previously.
>
> However, the cac
There is no guarantee that on fsl_ssi module load
SSI registers will have their power-on-reset values.
In fact, if the driver is reloaded the values in
registers will be whatever they were set to previously.
However, the cache needs to be fully populated at probe
time to avoid non-atomic allocati
11 matches
Mail list logo
