[PATCH 1/1] ASoC: core: cache index fix

[Mark Brown]

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.