On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 08:15:23PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > Mark Brown wrote:
> > Please don't bury patches in the middle of mails, that just means that > > if the patch is useful it's painful to apply. > The --scissors option of git am is your friend. That's still pain. > > Your patch seems fine but > > can you please resend in a directly applyable format unless something in > > the below indicates against that... > Hm, so do you think that my patch is the best way to fix? I wasn't > sure about it, that's why I wrote in that style. Well, it's either that or adding the values read back from the chip to the defaults. > > > Also, _regmap_write() itself calls again regmap_writeable(), so it's > > > superfluous. Alternatively, we may check -EIO from _regmap_write() > > > and treat as a special case not to show the error. Or, add a > > > parameter to skip regmap_writeable() call. > > I'm sorry but I can't parse the above - what is "it" in this context? > regmap_wrietable() call in _regmap_write(). It's superfluous with respect to what? Still a bit confused, sorry. > > Silently ignoring -EIO from the physical register write sounds like a > > very bad idea though, that seems likely to discard actual errors. > Right, in that case, a special error code might be used. But this > sounds like an overkill, too. It also sounds like it's heading towards the complex and fragile.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
