From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <576276E5.5040500@nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:22:37 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , , , , CC: , , , , , Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: max77686: Add support for MAX77620 clocks References: <1466000018-16784-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1466000018-16784-5-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <57627757.50101@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <57627757.50101@samsung.com> Return-Path: ldewangan@nvidia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed List-ID: Hi Krzysztof/Javier, Thanks for review of the series. I will post the V2 after taking care of all comment. One query about the comment. Thanks, Laxman On Thursday 16 June 2016 03:24 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/15/2016 04:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> enum chip_name { >> CHIP_MAX77686, >> CHIP_MAX77802, >> + CHIP_MAX77620, > Now it is more obvious why it is here. However I don't like the > duplication of device IDs, under different names and different values: > 1. include/linux/mfd/max77686-private.h > 2. include/linux/mfd/max77620.h > 3. here > > I was thinking about way of combining it... but these headers are > different. Unless there will be one header for all three devices. > > Anyway, please add the max77686 prefix to the enum. so will it be: enum max77686_chip_name { CHIP_MAX77686, CHIP_MAX77802, CHIP_MAX77620, }; Will it be fine here? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: max77686: Add support for MAX77620 clocks Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:22:37 +0530 Message-ID: <576276E5.5040500@nvidia.com> References: <1466000018-16784-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1466000018-16784-5-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <57627757.50101@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hqemgate14.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.143]:11543 "EHLO hqemgate14.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752360AbcFPKFx (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:05:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <57627757.50101@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , javier@osg.samsung.com, mturquette@baylibre.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Javier Martinez Canillas Hi Krzysztof/Javier, Thanks for review of the series. I will post the V2 after taking care of all comment. One query about the comment. Thanks, Laxman On Thursday 16 June 2016 03:24 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/15/2016 04:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> enum chip_name { >> CHIP_MAX77686, >> CHIP_MAX77802, >> + CHIP_MAX77620, > Now it is more obvious why it is here. However I don't like the > duplication of device IDs, under different names and different values: > 1. include/linux/mfd/max77686-private.h > 2. include/linux/mfd/max77620.h > 3. here > > I was thinking about way of combining it... but these headers are > different. Unless there will be one header for all three devices. > > Anyway, please add the max77686 prefix to the enum. so will it be: enum max77686_chip_name { CHIP_MAX77686, CHIP_MAX77802, CHIP_MAX77620, }; Will it be fine here? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ldewangan@nvidia.com (Laxman Dewangan) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:22:37 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] clk: max77686: Add support for MAX77620 clocks In-Reply-To: <57627757.50101@samsung.com> References: <1466000018-16784-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1466000018-16784-5-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <57627757.50101@samsung.com> Message-ID: <576276E5.5040500@nvidia.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Krzysztof/Javier, Thanks for review of the series. I will post the V2 after taking care of all comment. One query about the comment. Thanks, Laxman On Thursday 16 June 2016 03:24 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/15/2016 04:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> enum chip_name { >> CHIP_MAX77686, >> CHIP_MAX77802, >> + CHIP_MAX77620, > Now it is more obvious why it is here. However I don't like the > duplication of device IDs, under different names and different values: > 1. include/linux/mfd/max77686-private.h > 2. include/linux/mfd/max77620.h > 3. here > > I was thinking about way of combining it... but these headers are > different. Unless there will be one header for all three devices. > > Anyway, please add the max77686 prefix to the enum. so will it be: enum max77686_chip_name { CHIP_MAX77686, CHIP_MAX77802, CHIP_MAX77620, }; Will it be fine here?