[PATCH 3/4] OMAP3 and 4 i2c mark extended reg enums as extended only

[b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit)]

On 3/4/2011 9:32 AM, Andy Green wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 09:33 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
> Hi -
>
>> Since it is a patch on the I2C driver, the subject should start with
>> something like "I2C: OMAP2+: XXXXX". That comment is also applicable for
>> the other patches of the series except the first one.
>>
>>> This patch changes the extended register name to make it clearer
>>> they only exist in OMAP4 context
>>>
>>> Cc: patches at linaro.org
>>> Reported-by: Peter Maydell<peter.maydell@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Green<andy.green@linaro.org>
>>
>> The I2C maintainer should be in CC as well.
>
> OK thanks for this correction.
>
>>> + /* only on OMAP4430 */
>>> + OMAP_I2C_OMAP4430_REVNB_LO,
>>> + OMAP_I2C_OMAP4430_REVNB_HI,
>>> + OMAP_I2C_OMAP4430_IRQSTATUS_RAW,
>>> + OMAP_I2C_OMAP4430_IRQENABLE_SET,
>>
>> I think that you should keep only the comment, because it is not really
>> recommended to add SoC related information directly in IP register names.
>> These new registers are just an evolution of the I2C IP. The first
>> instances of that version are used in OMAP4 first, but OMAP4 variants
>> (4440) and OMAP5 will use the same one.
>>
>> Bottom line is that we can probably drop that patch from the series.
>
> The desire of this patch is to make it clear to the eye that a register
> that was introduced in what we will now call "IP_V2" is being touched.
> That is good because then code like
>
> 	if (dev->rev == BLAH_IP_V1)
> 		touch(BLAH_BLAH_IP_V2);
>
> will stand out clearly as wrong.  So I will update the patch rather than
> drop it, since the IP_Vn scheme is a much better fit for what is
> actually being done.  If you still don't like it we can forget about it
> then.

It is a little bit better. I personally don't think it is necessary, but 
since it is a purely subjective opinion, you can go ahead with that fix.

Regards,
Benoit