On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:22:51PM +0100, Ben Whitten wrote: > @@ -1489,10 +1489,11 @@ static int _regmap_raw_write_impl(struct regmap *map, > unsigned int reg, > WARN_ON(!map->bus); > > /* Check for unwritable registers before we start */ > - for (i = 0; i < val_len / map->format.val_bytes; i++) > - if (!regmap_writeable(map, > - reg + regmap_get_offset(map, i))) > - return -EINVAL; > + if (!regmap_writeable_noinc(map, reg)) > + for (i = 0; i < val_len / map->format.val_bytes; i++) > + if (!regmap_writeable(map, > + reg + regmap_get_offset(map, i))) > + return -EINVAL;
This feels like we're getting ourselves confused about nonincrementing registers and probably have other breakage somewhere else - we're already checking for nonincrementability in regmap_write_noinc(), and here we're only checking if the first register in the block has that property which might blow up on us if there's a register in the middle of the block that is nonincrementable. If we're going to check this here I think we should check on every register, but this is _raw_write_impl() which is part of the call path for implementing regmap_noinc_write() so checking here will break the API purpose designed for nonincrementing writes.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
