On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 09:45:29AM +0300, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 03:21:10PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 02:58:54PM +0300, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > I may have missed it but I don't see rx51_vmmc2_supply added back > > anywhere in the patch? > yes. That's because this patch is just to split then. As you can see > in current code, this structure, rx51_vmmc2_supply, is actually used > by rx51_vaux3_mmc and rx51_vmmc2. So the idea is to have separated > supplies for each one. This patch just splits then. Patch 0006 of this > series adds usage of rx51_vmmc2_supply. Might be an idea to change the description to something like "add a separate structure for...", it wasn't 100% clear what was going on (probably because the diff doesn't include sufficient context to make it clear). > > ...using dev_name rather than dev should avoid the need to do this at > > runtime. > I see your point. As mentioned above, this patch is just a split. > I just added rx51_vaux3_supply to be owned by rx51_vaux3_mmc. And > let the code behavior as it was before. > Maybe your proposal must be sent into a separated patch/patch series (?). Yes, it's definately a separate patch - might be good to put it into the series before this one. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
