From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Green Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] OMAP3 and 4 i2c mark extended reg enums as extended only Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:32:01 +0000 Message-ID: <4D70A381.50409@linaro.org> References: <20110303134744.30648.91218.stgit@otae.warmcat.com> <20110303135037.30648.90406.stgit@otae.warmcat.com> <4D700917.70105@ti.com> Reply-To: andy.green@linaro.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:40216 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751758Ab1CDIcE (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 03:32:04 -0500 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so1864828wyg.19 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:32:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D700917.70105@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Cousson, Benoit" Cc: Andy Green , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "patches@linaro.org" 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@linaro.org >> Reported-by: Peter Maydell >> Signed-off-by: Andy Green > > 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. -Andy