On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:49:05PM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:42:05PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Richard Fitzgerald wrote: > > > On 25/10/18 09:26, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 08:44:59AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 08 Oct 2018, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > > > From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I really feel this isn't the driver you are objecting to as such > > > > but the way regmap operates and also we seem to always have the same > > > > discussions around regmap every time we push a driver. > > > > Absolutely. I didn't like it before. I like it even less now. > > > > I guess the question from my side becomes do you want to block > this driver pending on major refactoring to regmap? I will have a > think about what I can do but its going to affect a LOT of drivers. > Actually one more thought, perhaps as a halfway for now i could look into removing the readables and defaults. We lose some things like error checking that we are reading real registers but as this driver doesnt currently do cache syncs we might be able to get away with this for now. Unless anyone strenuously objects i will have a look at the options there. As well as looking at wider refactoring but aiming further out. Thanks, Charles
