Hello Heiko, thanks for your comments. > both the grf as well as the bus-idx are rockchip specific, so they should be > prefixed (rockchip,grf, etc) and from my personal taste I would hope we > could invest in an "n" and "e", to make it a full bus-index ;-) I will change the names to rockchip,grf and rockchip,bus-index. > the convention seems to be "clock-frequency" for the desired bus speed > (checked i2c-sirf, i2c-exynos, i2c-at91and i2c-qup). Thanks for looking that up, will change. > > + * Driver for I2C unit in Rockchip RK3188 SoC > > RK3188 -> RK3xxx? yes, of course. > > +static inline void i2c_writel(struct rk3x_i2c *i2c, u32 value, > > + unsigned int offset) > > +{ > > + writel(value, i2c->regs + offset); > > +} > > + > > +static inline u32 i2c_readl(struct rk3x_i2c *i2c, unsigned int offset) > > +{ > > + return readl(i2c->regs + offset); > > +} > > I'm not sure what the policy here is, but is this indirection really > necessary when it's only doing a normal readl/writel? I saw that pattern in several device drivers (a quick grep for "static inline void .*_writel" turns up quite a bit of those). Obviously, it doesn't hurt performance-wise as they are just inline functions. I personally think that i2c_writel(i2c, val, REG_CON); is a bit more concise than writel(val, i2c->regs + REG_CON); And it makes tracing easier by giving me a single function were I can trace all register accesses, if needed. But as you said, there might be some policy I don't know about. If you feel strongly about it or someone else also votes for plain readl/writel, I will happily change it. Thanks, Max -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html