2 Aug
2011
2 Aug
'11
5:27 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 01:17:12PM +0000, Dong Aisheng-B29396 wrote:
For rbtree, i tried that only changed snd_soc_rbtree_cache_init as follows Could work. Then rbtree_cache_read/write do not need to care about step. This could reduce many code changes and complexity. But the disadvantage is that the rbtree cache may not be able to find a adjacent register in the same block if the reg step is 2. However it works. Do you think this is acceptable?
No, like I've been saying the rbtree should have *no* visibility of step sizes. This is exactly the sort of complexity and fragility that I've been raising as an issue.