From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mporter@linaro.org (Matt Porter) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:26:16 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space In-Reply-To: <20140417065753.GC28725@lee--X1> References: <1397501428-8857-1-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <1397501428-8857-3-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <20140416110603.GA19671@lee--X1> <20140416213141.GD12304@sirena.org.uk> <20140417065753.GC28725@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20140417222616.GK23695@beef> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:57:53AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > s/regmap/Regmap > > > > It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) > > Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. > > > > addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. > > > > > REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than add map. Okay, not as bad > > > as I first thought, but still, is there a better naming convention you > > > could use? > > > > addrmap or something? > > Right, that was what I was thinking. However, I prefer something along > the lines of 'i2c' and 'i2c_sec' or 'client' and 'client_slv' etc. FWIW, the reason it's addmap{0,1} is that the datasheet has documents ADDMAP=0 and the first bank of registers and ADDMAP=1 as the second bank of registers. I adopted that to match the docs for the part. I guess we could do i2c and i2c_sec, I'll just have to put a comment correlating it to the h/w. Calling it 'slv' implies something else so we should avoid that here. The notion of a "secondary" i2c device is completely a Linux I2C subsystem fabrication which wouldn't exist if it allowed multiple slave addresses per device. From a h/w perspective there is really no primary and secondary relationship. I'm fine with i2c/i2c_sec or addrmap0/1 and I will just comment to correlate with the datasheet..pick one. -Matt > > -- > Lee Jones > Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead > Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Porter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:26:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20140417222616.GK23695@beef> References: <1397501428-8857-1-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <1397501428-8857-3-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <20140416110603.GA19671@lee--X1> <20140416213141.GD12304@sirena.org.uk> <20140417065753.GC28725@lee--X1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140417065753.GC28725@lee--X1> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Mark Brown , Devicetree List , Samuel Ortiz , Liam Girdwood , Tim Kryger , Markus Mayer , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM Kernel List List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:57:53AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > s/regmap/Regmap > >=20 > > It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on= :) >=20 > Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. >=20 > > > addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. > >=20 > > > REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than add map. Okay, not as = bad > > > as I first thought, but still, is there a better naming conventio= n you > > > could use? > >=20 > > addrmap or something? >=20 > Right, that was what I was thinking. However, I prefer something alon= g > the lines of 'i2c' and 'i2c_sec' or 'client' and 'client_slv' etc. =46WIW, the reason it's addmap{0,1} is that the datasheet has documents ADDMAP=3D0 and the first bank of registers and ADDMAP=3D1 as the second= bank of registers. I adopted that to match the docs for the part. I guess we could do i2c and i2c_sec, I'll just have to put a comment correlating it to the h/w. Calling it 'slv' implies something else so we should avoid that here. The notion of a "secondary" i2c device is completely a Linux I2C subsystem fabrication which wouldn't exist if it allowed multiple slave addresses per device. From a h/w perspective there is really no primary and secondary relationship. I'm fine with i2c/i2c_sec or addrmap0/1 and I will just comment to correlate with the datasheet..pick one. -Matt >=20 > --=20 > Lee Jones > Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead > Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751208AbaDQW0Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:26:24 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:52139 "EHLO mail-ie0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750970AbaDQW0U (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:26:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:26:16 -0400 From: Matt Porter To: Lee Jones Cc: Mark Brown , Devicetree List , Samuel Ortiz , Liam Girdwood , Tim Kryger , Markus Mayer , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM Kernel List Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space Message-ID: <20140417222616.GK23695@beef> References: <1397501428-8857-1-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <1397501428-8857-3-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <20140416110603.GA19671@lee--X1> <20140416213141.GD12304@sirena.org.uk> <20140417065753.GC28725@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20140417065753.GC28725@lee--X1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:57:53AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > s/regmap/Regmap > > > > It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) > > Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. > > > > addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. > > > > > REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than add map. Okay, not as bad > > > as I first thought, but still, is there a better naming convention you > > > could use? > > > > addrmap or something? > > Right, that was what I was thinking. However, I prefer something along > the lines of 'i2c' and 'i2c_sec' or 'client' and 'client_slv' etc. FWIW, the reason it's addmap{0,1} is that the datasheet has documents ADDMAP=0 and the first bank of registers and ADDMAP=1 as the second bank of registers. I adopted that to match the docs for the part. I guess we could do i2c and i2c_sec, I'll just have to put a comment correlating it to the h/w. Calling it 'slv' implies something else so we should avoid that here. The notion of a "secondary" i2c device is completely a Linux I2C subsystem fabrication which wouldn't exist if it allowed multiple slave addresses per device. From a h/w perspective there is really no primary and secondary relationship. I'm fine with i2c/i2c_sec or addrmap0/1 and I will just comment to correlate with the datasheet..pick one. -Matt > > -- > Lee Jones > Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead > Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs > Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog