Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] i2c: at91: cleanup and dt support

[ludovic.desroches <ludovic.desroches-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Wolfram,

Le 09/12/2012 12:16 PM, Wolfram Sang a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:03:59AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 09/12/2012 08:42 AM, ludovic.desroches-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org :
>>> From: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This set of patches is based on Nikolaus at91_i2c driver.
>>>
>>> Changes:
>>> v3:
>>>    - only put multi-drive lines in the if...else statement (suggested
>>>    by Warner Losh)
>>
>> Hi Wolfram,
>>
>> As said by Ludovic, this series goes on top of Nikolaus' one.
>> My Acked-by is already set on this one, so I think that I have nothing
>> more to do ;-)
>>
>> BTW, in case you need help to sort all this, do not hesitate to contact
>> us... we can setup a git tree for this...
>
> I think I am fine. Patches look good. I wondered a bit about first
> removing the old driver, then adding the new one with regard to
> bisectability. But as the old driver depends on BROKEN, I think this is
> OK to do.
>
> One thing I'd like to make, though. I'd like to squash the following
> patches into one:
>
> 	drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver
> 	i2c: at91: use managed resources
> 	i2c: at91: add warning about transmission issues for some devices
> 	i2c: at91: use an id table for SoC dependent parameters
>
> It is especially the last patch I am mostly interested in. The id_table
> approach is what I like, while the original id_entry mechanism looks
> fishy. I'd was good for reviewing to have the patches split like this;
> yet for hitting mainline, I'd prefer to have the driver proper on first
> occasion. I already did the squashing in a test-branch and the result
> looks good to me.
>
> Nikolaus, Ludovic: Are you fine with this?
>

No problem on my side.

Regards

Ludovic

> Thanks,
>
>     Wolfram
>