From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sameo@linux.intel.com (Samuel Ortiz) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 18:02:04 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 06/26] mfd: ab8500-sysctrl: Provide configuration for SysClkReqRfClkBuf registers In-Reply-To: <20130128083816.GZ15873@gmail.com> References: <1358254566-12419-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1358254566-12419-7-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20130127235248.GN1174@sortiz-mobl> <20130128083816.GZ15873@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130203170204.GP8476@sortiz-mobl> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Lee, On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 08:38:16AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > Hi Lee, Kennet, > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:55:46PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > From: Kennet Wallden > > > > > > Add the possibility to pass configuration settings for > > > SysCl1kReqRfClkBuf to SysClk8ReqRfClkBuf via platform data. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones > > > Signed-off-by: Kennet Wallden > > > Reviewed-by: Karl-Johan PERNTZ > > > Reviewed-by: Bengt JONSSON > > > --- > > > drivers/mfd/ab8500-sysctrl.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/linux/mfd/abx500/ab8500-sysctrl.h | 5 +++++ > > > include/linux/mfd/abx500/ab8500.h | 2 ++ > > > 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/ab8500-sysctrl.c b/drivers/mfd/ab8500-sysctrl.c > > > index cf58f69..19a024e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/ab8500-sysctrl.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/ab8500-sysctrl.c > > > @@ -113,11 +113,36 @@ int ab8500_sysctrl_write(u16 reg, u8 mask, u8 value) > > > static int __devinit ab8500_sysctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > { > > > struct ab8500_platform_data *plat; > > > + struct ab8500_sysctrl_platform_data *pdata; > > > > > > sysctrl_dev = &pdev->dev; > > > plat = dev_get_platdata(pdev->dev.parent); > > > if (plat->pm_power_off) > > > pm_power_off = ab8500_power_off; > > > + > > > + pdata = plat->sysctrl; > > > + > > > + if (pdata) { > > > + int ret; > > > + int i; > > > + int j; > > Cosmetic > > int i, j, ret; > > Hmmm... this is how I'd prefer it too, Great, I'm glad we agree :) > but other maintainers prefer > one-per-line. It would be better if we could standardise it somewhere > to prevent unnecessary fixups. I certainly don't like that coding style and I sincerely believe a vast majority of the kernel code avoids it as well. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/