Re: [PATCH 2/4] i2c: i2c-ocores: Use reg-shift property

["Jayachandran C." <jayachandranc-oSioyQM9ZPnuBjGU1YDckgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:56:51PM +0530, Jayachandran C. wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:41:36PM +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> > >>>>> "J" == Jayachandran C <jayachandranc-oSioyQM9ZPnuBjGU1YDckgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> writes:
> > 
> >  J> From: Ganesan Ramalingam <ganesanr-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> >  J> Deprecate 'regstep' property and use the standard 'reg-shift' property
> >  J> for register offset shifts. 'regstep' will still be supported as an
> >  J> optional property, but will give a warning when used.
> > 
> > ..
> >  
> >  J>  struct ocores_i2c_platform_data {
> >  J> -	u32 regstep;   /* distance between registers */
> >  J> -	u32 clock_khz; /* input clock in kHz */
> >  J> -	u8 num_devices; /* number of devices in the devices list */
> >  J> +	u32 reg_shift;		/* register offset shift value */
> >  J> +	u32 clock_khz;		/* input clock in kHz */
> >  J> +	u8 num_devices;		/* number of devices in the devices list */
> >  J>  	struct i2c_board_info const *devices; /* devices connected to the bus */
> >  J>  };
> > 
> > Why not just keep this change to the dt bindings, instead of risking
> > breaking stuff for platform drivers as well? There's no conceptual
> > reason why reg_shift is any better than regstep.
> 
> This is to keep the names and meanings of platform property and DT
> property same. Having two ways (setting regstep in platform code or
> setting 'reg-shift' in DT) of specifying the same parameter is not
> a nice.
> 
> There is only one user of this API in the whole kernel tree, which
> is fixed as part of the patchset.
> 
> Also we make sure that we do not break existing DTBs by still accepting
> 'regstep' property.

Any further comments on this patchset? If the changes are fine, an Acked-by
would be really aeppreciated.

Thanks,
JC.