From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Andersson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] input: rmi4: Regulator supply support Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:05:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20160512030524.GA1256@tuxbot> References: <1462596008-21381-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <57312CFB.2040304@synaptics.com> <20160510154904.GI1256@tuxbot> <5733C088.1090700@synaptics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5733C088.1090700@synaptics.com> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Duggan , Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Christopher Heiny , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Tissoires List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed 11 May 16:30 PDT 2016, Andrew Duggan wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > > On 05/10/2016 08:49 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: [..] > >So either we duplicate the regulator support in spi/i2c or we make them > >optional in the core driver. Sounds like you prefer the prior, i.e. v1 > >of my patch. > > Yes, after all this I think it makes sense to put regulator support in the > spi/i2c transports like in your v1 patch. I essentially duplicated the irq > handling code in both transports so I would be ok with duplicating regulator > support too. It doesn't seem like that much code. But, if this is too much > duplication we could create some sort of common file and put the common irq > and regulator support functions which could be called in the transports. > Similar to how rmi_2d_sensor.c defines some common functions shared between > rmi_f11 and rmi_f12. > Sounds reasonable, I'm okay with this. Did you have any comments on the implementation I had in v1? @Dmitry, do you want me to resend v1? Regards, Bjorn