From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludovic.desroches Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] i2c: at91: cleanup and dt support Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:12:23 +0200 Message-ID: <50506E17.1080904@atmel.com> References: <1347432137-25058-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <505041EF.5060204@atmel.com> <20120912101607.GA2624@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120912101607.GA2624-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Wolfram Sang Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, n.voss-+umVssTZoCsb1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Wolfram, Le 09/12/2012 12:16 PM, Wolfram Sang a =E9crit : > 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 >>> >>> 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 > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludovic.desroches@atmel.com (ludovic.desroches) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:12:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/8] i2c: at91: cleanup and dt support In-Reply-To: <20120912101607.GA2624@pengutronix.de> References: <1347432137-25058-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <505041EF.5060204@atmel.com> <20120912101607.GA2624@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <50506E17.1080904@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Wolfram, Le 09/12/2012 12:16 PM, Wolfram Sang a ?crit : > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:03:59AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> On 09/12/2012 08:42 AM, ludovic.desroches at atmel.com : >>> From: Ludovic Desroches >>> >>> 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 >