From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/14] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: minimal driver support Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:57:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4FD782F7.9010003@ti.com> References: <54e643eb1b4dbefcbb52580fa582043bf4f0da3d.1339419492.git.afzal@ti.com> <4FD6586A.9060706@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:49717 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753120Ab2FLR5O (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:57:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Mohammed, Afzal" Cc: "tony@atomide.com" , "paul@pwsan.com" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On 06/12/2012 02:16 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 02:13:22, Hunter, Jon wrote: > >>> + gpmc_revision = (l >> 4) & 0xf; >> >> Why are you only storing the major part of the rev? Why not keep both parts? > > Does having minor revision add any value ?, at least as of now, > I do not see any. May be not but it does not hurt either. >>> + dev_info(gpmc_dev, "GPMC revision %d.%d\n", gpmc_revision, l & 0x0f); >> >> Nit-pick, please add a mask and shift definition for the revision >> register major and minor fields and use these above. > > Yes, right Thanks Jon