On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:17:03PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:07:04PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, 09 Mar 2017, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > > > > arizona_poll_reg essentially hard-codes regmap_read_poll_timeout, this > > > > patch updates the implementation to use regmap_read_poll_timeout. We > > > > still keep arizona_poll_reg around as regmap_read_poll_timeout is a > > > > macro so rather than expand this for each caller keep it wrapped in > > > > arizona_poll_reg. > > > > > > > > Whilst we are doing this make the timeouts a little more generous as the > > > > previous system had a bit more slack as it was done as a delay per > > > > iteration of the loop whereas regmap_read_poll_timeout compares ktime's. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c | 38 ++++++++++++++------------------------ > > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > > > Apart from patch count, is there any technical reason why this patch > > > shouldn't just be rolled into patch 3? > > > > > > > I prefer it as two patches as its clearer what happened from the > > history. One patch changes the interface for the function, the > > other updates the implementation. Can squash if you feel strongly > > about it though? > > I don't feel that strongly about it, but to me it looks like patch 4 > reworks everything patch 3 did. >
I will spin a new version and squash them. Thanks, Charles
