On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:20:11PM +0200, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:20:35PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:12:34PM +0200, Markus Pargmann wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -1229,6 +1229,11 @@ int _regmap_raw_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg,
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (!map->bus->write && val_len == map->format.val_bytes) {
> > > + ret = _regmap_bus_reg_write(map, reg, *(unsigned int *)val);
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > This is broken - you can't use a raw value as a register value. The
> I am not sure what you mean here?
> The register value given to _regmap_raw_write is the real register
> value, not formatted differenty. This is given directly towards
> bus->reg_write() which should handle the rest.
I mean the value for the register, not the register address.
> At least that's how I understood the code. For example regmap_read()
> directly calls _regmap_read() which in turn calls directly
> bus->reg_read() without any formating.
You're adding this code to regmap_raw_write() which takes raw register
values for the device, not unsigned integers.
> > endianness of the device may not be the same as the endianness of the
> > system and you can't cast a value to unsigned int, the value may be of
> > any size.
> Yes right. On the other hand if bus->read() and bus->write() was not set
> in the init method (before this patch series) no formatting functions at
> all were assigned. So it was always ignored for bus->reg_read() and
> bus->reg_write()?!
I'm not sure what the "it" you're talking about here is, sorry. There
are unsupported features in the API especially for cases that don't make
a huge amount of sense, the error handling isn't always complete. It
sounds like you might be trying to support one of these nonsensical
cases - it's not obvious what raw I/O on a device where we don't know
the raw format of the device should mean or how anything could sensibly
use that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
