From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:13:48 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Split I2C_M_NOSTART support out of I2C_FUNC_PROTOCOL_MANGLING Message-Id: <20120503111348.GE9574@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="FEz7ebHBGB6b2e8X" List-Id: References: <1335443839-22872-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120503095211.GC9574@pengutronix.de> <20120503095814.GA3955@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20120503095814.GA3955-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> To: Mark Brown Cc: Jean Delvare , Florian Tobias Schandinat , Dmitry Torokhov , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org --FEz7ebHBGB6b2e8X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 10:58:15AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:52:11AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: >=20 > > Also, I'd think the FUNC_NOSTART bit should be 0x08 and SMBUS_PEC 0x400= 0. This > > will be more intuitive, probably? >=20 > What is the value in renumbering everything? It just seems like it > makes the diff less clear and has no practical value. Not everything, only those 2. The result would be having one block dealing with I2C and one block with SMBUS. But Jean's comment is an ultimate "no" anyway. --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --FEz7ebHBGB6b2e8X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk+iaGwACgkQD27XaX1/VRvc2gCdFFMTDudSC0eamh0jW+XcbbT1 nSsAn2zj27CEC6RQpYB25KoXfPF5CLoZ =XpFB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FEz7ebHBGB6b2e8X--