diff for duplicates of <201301212232.52161.marex@denx.de> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 4b675af..a5229d5 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,86 +1,82 @@ -Dear Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw, +Dear Micha? Miros?aw, > 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>: -> > Dear Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw, -> >=20 +> > Dear Micha? Miros?aw, +> > > >> 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>: > >> > This patch adds support for i.MX23 into the LRADC driver. The LRADC > >> > block on MX23 is not much different from the one on MX28, thus this > >> > is only a few changes fixing the parts that are specific to MX23. -> >>=20 +> >> > >> [...] -> >>=20 +> >> > >> > +struct mxs_lradc_of_config { > >> > + const int irq_count; > >> > + const char * const *irq_name; > >> > +}; > >> > + -> >> > +static const struct mxs_lradc_of_config const mxs_lradc_of_config[]= - =3D -> >> > { + [IMX23_LRADC] =3D { -> >> > + .irq_count =3D ARRAY_SIZE(mx23_lradc_irq_names), -> >> > + .irq_name =3D mx23_lradc_irq_names, +> >> > +static const struct mxs_lradc_of_config const mxs_lradc_of_config[] = +> >> > { + [IMX23_LRADC] = { +> >> > + .irq_count = ARRAY_SIZE(mx23_lradc_irq_names), +> >> > + .irq_name = mx23_lradc_irq_names, > >> > + }, -> >> > + [IMX28_LRADC] =3D { -> >> > + .irq_count =3D ARRAY_SIZE(mx28_lradc_irq_names), -> >> > + .irq_name =3D mx28_lradc_irq_names, +> >> > + [IMX28_LRADC] = { +> >> > + .irq_count = ARRAY_SIZE(mx28_lradc_irq_names), +> >> > + .irq_name = mx28_lradc_irq_names, > >> > + }, > >> > +}; > >> > + -> >> >=20 +> >> > > >> > enum mxs_lradc_ts { -> >> > =20 -> >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_NONE =3D 0, +> >> > +> >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_NONE = 0, > >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_4WIRE, -> >> >=20 +> >> > > >> > @@ -857,8 +890,19 @@ static void mxs_lradc_hw_stop(struct mxs_lradc > >> > *lradc) -> >> >=20 +> >> > > >> > writel(0, lradc->base + LRADC_DELAY(i)); -> >> > =20 +> >> > > >> > } -> >> >=20 -> >> > +static const struct of_device_id mxs_lradc_dt_ids[] =3D { -> >> > + { .compatible =3D "fsl,imx23-lradc", .data =3D (void -> >> > *)IMX23_LRADC, }, + { .compatible =3D "fsl,imx28-lradc", .data= - =3D +> >> > +> >> > +static const struct of_device_id mxs_lradc_dt_ids[] = { +> >> > + { .compatible = "fsl,imx23-lradc", .data = (void +> >> > *)IMX23_LRADC, }, + { .compatible = "fsl,imx28-lradc", .data = > >> > (void > >> > *)IMX28_LRADC, }, + { /* sentinel */ } > >> > +}; > >> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mxs_lradc_dt_ids); > >> > + -> >>=20 +> >> > >> Why not s/(void \*)\(IMX.._LRADC\)/\&mxs_lradc_of_config[\1]/ ? -> >=20 +> > > > Check the register layout, it differs between MX23 and MX28, that's one > > reason, since were we to access differently placed registers, we can do > > it easily as in the SSP/I2C drivers. -> >=20 +> > > > Moreover, there are some features on the MX28 that are not on the MX23 > > (like voltage treshold triggers and touchbuttons), with this setup, we > > can easily check what we're running at at runtime and determine to > > disallow these. -> >=20 +> > > > From my point of view, using the number (IMX23_LRADC / IMX28_LRADC) is > > much more convenient in the long run. ->=20 +> > I'm asking, because you don't use this number anywhere other than in > mxs_lradc_probe() > and there only to dereference the irq-names table. After that the > structure and number > are forgotten. -Certainly, so far it's used only this way. But please see my argument about= -=20 +Certainly, so far it's used only this way. But please see my argument about register layout, that's why I went down this road of abstraction. -> Sure, it's just an insn or two, so no strong opinion here --- just curiou= -s. +> Sure, it's just an insn or two, so no strong opinion here --- just curious. I tried to put it down above ;-) > Best Regards, -> Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw +> Micha? Miros?aw Best regards, Marek Vasut diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index debc15d..56cf0dc 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,102 +1,93 @@ "ref\01358798722-25102-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de\0" "ref\0201301212200.36917.marex@denx.de\0" "ref\0CAHXqBFKzMgX48EJL_f6RF1tZYkdPLCZhip7M9jNuFkY+wjeQqA@mail.gmail.com\0" - "From\0Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>\0" - "Subject\0Re: [PATCH 1/2] iio: mxs: Add MX23 support into the IIO driver\0" + "From\0marex@denx.de (Marek Vasut)\0" + "Subject\0[PATCH 1/2] iio: mxs: Add MX23 support into the IIO driver\0" "Date\0Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:32:51 +0100\0" - "To\0Micha\305\202 Miros\305\202aw <mirqus@gmail.com>\0" - "Cc\0linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" - Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> - Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> - Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> - " linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0" + "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" - "Dear Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw,\n" + "Dear Micha? Miros?aw,\n" "\n" "> 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>:\n" - "> > Dear Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw,\n" - "> >=20\n" + "> > Dear Micha? Miros?aw,\n" + "> > \n" "> >> 2013/1/21 Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>:\n" "> >> > This patch adds support for i.MX23 into the LRADC driver. The LRADC\n" "> >> > block on MX23 is not much different from the one on MX28, thus this\n" "> >> > is only a few changes fixing the parts that are specific to MX23.\n" - "> >>=20\n" + "> >> \n" "> >> [...]\n" - "> >>=20\n" + "> >> \n" "> >> > +struct mxs_lradc_of_config {\n" "> >> > + const int irq_count;\n" "> >> > + const char * const *irq_name;\n" "> >> > +};\n" "> >> > +\n" - "> >> > +static const struct mxs_lradc_of_config const mxs_lradc_of_config[]=\n" - " =3D\n" - "> >> > { + [IMX23_LRADC] =3D {\n" - "> >> > + .irq_count =3D ARRAY_SIZE(mx23_lradc_irq_names),\n" - "> >> > + .irq_name =3D mx23_lradc_irq_names,\n" + "> >> > +static const struct mxs_lradc_of_config const mxs_lradc_of_config[] =\n" + "> >> > { + [IMX23_LRADC] = {\n" + "> >> > + .irq_count = ARRAY_SIZE(mx23_lradc_irq_names),\n" + "> >> > + .irq_name = mx23_lradc_irq_names,\n" "> >> > + },\n" - "> >> > + [IMX28_LRADC] =3D {\n" - "> >> > + .irq_count =3D ARRAY_SIZE(mx28_lradc_irq_names),\n" - "> >> > + .irq_name =3D mx28_lradc_irq_names,\n" + "> >> > + [IMX28_LRADC] = {\n" + "> >> > + .irq_count = ARRAY_SIZE(mx28_lradc_irq_names),\n" + "> >> > + .irq_name = mx28_lradc_irq_names,\n" "> >> > + },\n" "> >> > +};\n" "> >> > +\n" - "> >> >=20\n" + "> >> > \n" "> >> > enum mxs_lradc_ts {\n" - "> >> > =20\n" - "> >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_NONE =3D 0,\n" + "> >> > \n" + "> >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_NONE = 0,\n" "> >> > MXS_LRADC_TOUCHSCREEN_4WIRE,\n" - "> >> >=20\n" + "> >> > \n" "> >> > @@ -857,8 +890,19 @@ static void mxs_lradc_hw_stop(struct mxs_lradc\n" "> >> > *lradc)\n" - "> >> >=20\n" + "> >> > \n" "> >> > writel(0, lradc->base + LRADC_DELAY(i));\n" - "> >> > =20\n" + "> >> > \n" "> >> > }\n" - "> >> >=20\n" - "> >> > +static const struct of_device_id mxs_lradc_dt_ids[] =3D {\n" - "> >> > + { .compatible =3D \"fsl,imx23-lradc\", .data =3D (void\n" - "> >> > *)IMX23_LRADC, }, + { .compatible =3D \"fsl,imx28-lradc\", .data=\n" - " =3D\n" + "> >> > \n" + "> >> > +static const struct of_device_id mxs_lradc_dt_ids[] = {\n" + "> >> > + { .compatible = \"fsl,imx23-lradc\", .data = (void\n" + "> >> > *)IMX23_LRADC, }, + { .compatible = \"fsl,imx28-lradc\", .data =\n" "> >> > (void\n" "> >> > *)IMX28_LRADC, }, + { /* sentinel */ }\n" "> >> > +};\n" "> >> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mxs_lradc_dt_ids);\n" "> >> > +\n" - "> >>=20\n" + "> >> \n" "> >> Why not s/(void \\*)\\(IMX.._LRADC\\)/\\&mxs_lradc_of_config[\\1]/ ?\n" - "> >=20\n" + "> > \n" "> > Check the register layout, it differs between MX23 and MX28, that's one\n" "> > reason, since were we to access differently placed registers, we can do\n" "> > it easily as in the SSP/I2C drivers.\n" - "> >=20\n" + "> > \n" "> > Moreover, there are some features on the MX28 that are not on the MX23\n" "> > (like voltage treshold triggers and touchbuttons), with this setup, we\n" "> > can easily check what we're running at at runtime and determine to\n" "> > disallow these.\n" - "> >=20\n" + "> > \n" "> > From my point of view, using the number (IMX23_LRADC / IMX28_LRADC) is\n" "> > much more convenient in the long run.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> I'm asking, because you don't use this number anywhere other than in\n" "> mxs_lradc_probe()\n" "> and there only to dereference the irq-names table. After that the\n" "> structure and number\n" "> are forgotten.\n" "\n" - "Certainly, so far it's used only this way. But please see my argument about=\n" - "=20\n" + "Certainly, so far it's used only this way. But please see my argument about \n" "register layout, that's why I went down this road of abstraction.\n" "\n" - "> Sure, it's just an insn or two, so no strong opinion here --- just curiou=\n" - "s.\n" + "> Sure, it's just an insn or two, so no strong opinion here --- just curious.\n" "\n" "I tried to put it down above ;-)\n" "\n" "> Best Regards,\n" - "> Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw\n" + "> Micha? Miros?aw\n" "\n" "Best regards,\n" Marek Vasut -73aa4b0e954d4145f6930291f70ccbb1de5e6c659ef288d0380e5e8f50c947b5 +c720da385ed896af0c01192f6fab31de4812ef8ce69ec5739204edd8aebb58ad
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.