From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751659AbbJFGOQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 02:14:16 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44696 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751190AbbJFGOP (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 02:14:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20151005.232956.105884641412802470.davem@davemloft.net> To: broonie@kernel.org Cc: jon@ringle.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jringle@gridpoint.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: only call custom reg_update_bits() if reg is marked volatile From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20151005145722.GT12635@sirena.org.uk> References: <1444051772-20270-1-git-send-email-jon@ringle.org> <20151005145722.GT12635@sirena.org.uk> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.4 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Mark Brown Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:57:22 +0100 > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 09:29:31AM -0400, jon@ringle.org wrote: >> From: Jon Ringle >> >> The only time that it makes sense to call a custom provided reg_update_bits >> function, is the register being updated is one that has volatile bits. >> Otherwise, the normal read/modify/write cycle (where the read is likely to >> be free from the cache) will do just fine. This should keep the reg cache >> intact, since volatile registers won't get cached anyway. > > Dave, to be clear please do *not* apply this patch at least for the time > being - I've not reviewed it or the one from Thursday that you applied > this morning. It's applied, it's pushed out to my tree, and therefore this will need to be fixed up with a relative patch of some sort. What you don't seem to understand is that my GIT tree is never rebased or mangled because many people depend upon it. So once a patch is applied, that commit lives on forever.