From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759010Ab2J3Ktl (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:49:41 -0400 Received: from hqemgate03.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.140]:3514 "EHLO hqemgate03.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758147Ab2J3Ktk (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:49:40 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:49:38 -0700 Message-ID: <508FB063.70206@nvidia.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:18:03 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown , "sameo@linux.intel.com" CC: "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , Stephen Warren , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mfd: Convert tps6586x to irq_domain References: <1349712805-10014-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1349712805-10014-2-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20121009060641.GE8237@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5073BAA8.4060404@nvidia.com> <20121009062355.GJ8237@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5073BE7F.5060107@nvidia.com> <20121009064011.GQ8237@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20121009064011.GQ8237@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark/Samuel, There is one more change for doing cleanups in regulator parsing where I moved the regulator parsing from mfd to regulator driver: [PATCH] mfd: tps6586x: move regulator dt parsing to regulator driver Although this series and above change is independent but I like to go these in same branch to avoid the merge conflict. If this is fine to go in same branch theb I can create a new series of these 3 changes and above change. These series is already reviewed by Mark. Please let me know your opinion. Thanks, Laxman On Tuesday 09 October 2012 12:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:34:47AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >> The bit definitions are also different in status and mask register >> and yes, this will be again problem as we do in isr thread >> data->status_buf[i]&= ~data->mask_buf[i]; >> So given the constraint, generic will not work here. > OK, that's a good reason not to use the generic code.