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 <[email protected]> writes: > > > > J> From: Ganesan Ramalingam <[email protected]> > > 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
