From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE352C43603 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA0B206DF for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gerhold.net header.i=@gerhold.net header.b="HHHCGVGu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728301AbfLDQuw (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:50:52 -0500 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.21]:17744 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726934AbfLDQuw (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:50:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1575478250; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=qcxSP5ltwRsHLylUXdQzf4MV6ssvVHBNEyHcwO0mBeg=; b=HHHCGVGuTfEjuN8HQIDuMuFw7njmBNDmHUS///Uy3mjRasUO4wPs+P8H93Qu4na8Nn wZcluZ61LhcGXw1u9uTANUwncwFKh0KZAwtAYKk9NRBUSZmFpKcCK007SHg4S4MQz1JH m2wfkRAwL7LvGEH6GHg3ow+a8ByHJdWz6e/i30LdbQzljt4pjNYUOfmqXUHf3gbsUhcE 6OIKdMjHObJXrhLREmKkIlaP5qKEkFq9pLkXuLUraSl354ZcTjMFOB1ikhgwqHtqKTuk pAsKQPfU3aBkXV1UVn7J/Cg/oN0SHPutm11wZPDf+uO1nJUHIt8s/uEiqDNZKunRJ6qG 6qhQ== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u266EZF6ORJDd/LYtbif" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 46.0.2 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id R01a59vB4GlhEwI (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:47:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:47:37 +0100 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Andi Shyti , Linux Input , Seung-Woo Kim , Joonyoung Shim Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Input: mms114 - use smbus functions whenever possible Message-ID: <20191204164737.GA2426@gerhold.net> References: <20191020202856.20287-1-andi@etezian.org> <20191020202856.20287-2-andi@etezian.org> <20191021093423.GA1116@gerhold.net> <20191021154105.GC2278@jack.zhora.eu> <20191021162632.GA83253@gerhold.net> <20191021163956.GB1353@jack.zhora.eu> <20191022032140.GV35946@dtor-ws> <20191022111729.GA2913@jack.zhora.eu> <20191118133229.GA182934@gerhold.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191118133229.GA182934@gerhold.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Hi Dmitry, On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 02:32:36PM +0100, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:18:39PM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > > If regmap is too much work then as a stop gap we could maybe only > > > convert write functions and mention why read needs to be custom. > > > > regmap is not too much work but I don't have the device with me, > > I might get one at some point, but can't do anything right now. > > > > Perhaps, for now you can take Stephan's patches and I would > > update everything once I get the device. They are not mutually > > exclusive, anyway. > > What do you think about this? > > My patches for MMS345L keep behavior for MMS114 and MMS152 as-is, > so we can be sure that there are no regressions for them. > > Cleaning up the driver to use SMBUS and/or regmap instead of the custom > read/write methods is definitely something we should attempt to do > at some point, but only when we can properly test them on MMS114. > > Until we have a MMS114 test device available, I would say that > applying my patches is the least intrusive way to make MMS345L work. > I would really like to find a solution for this. If it helps, I can re-send my patches for MMS345L (although they still apply cleanly...). Let me know what you would prefer! Thanks, Stephan