Grant Likely wrote:
> 2009/3/31 Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> -
>>>>> - mpc_i2c_setclock(i2c);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (set_clock)
>>>>> + mpc_i2c_setclock(i2c);
>>>> Can't we drop 'set_clock' with something like this here?
>>>>
>>>> + if (!of_get_property(op->node, "fsl,preserve-clocking", NULL)) {
>>>> +
>>>> + if (of_get_property(op->node, "dfsrr", NULL))
>>>> + i2c->flags |= FSL_I2C_DEV_SEPARATE_DFSRR;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(op->node, "fsl,mpc5200-i2c") ||
>>>> + of_device_is_compatible(op->node, "mpc5200-i2c"))
>>>> + i2c->flags |= FSL_I2C_DEV_CLOCK_5200;
>>>> +
>>>> + mpc_i2c_setclock(i2c);
>>>> + }
>>> No, because the I2C registers are not yet mapped.
>> Sorry, I used misleading words :) With 'here' I meant 'at this
>> position', i.e. insert my above block where mpc_i2c_setclock was used
>> anyway.
>
> I agree. The extra flag makes the flow more complex. The code block
> should be moved down.
OK, I just resent the patch standalone also including documentation. I
think it can go in immediately without waiting for the full clock
setting patch.
Wolfgang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
