Hi Marc, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 06:55:35PM +1100, Marc Reilly wrote: > Hi, > > Thankyou all for your feedback and comments. I'll use them for a V2 but > Samuel, I'd like to know if you'd like me to base them on a specific branch > before I do. Please rebase it against my for-next branch. > Shawn, thanks for testing! > > On Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:29:41 PM Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:12:31PM +0100, Arnaud Patard wrote: > > > I've never looked at regmap deeply but can't it be done with regmap or is > > > it just a bad idea ? > > > > Glancing quickly at the existing code it should map on reasonably well, > > though a new format definition may be required for the 25 bit shift that > > would be trivial. > > I'm sadly unfamiliar with regmap, is it a far superior solution? does it need > to used now? (ie. I'm relucant to totally rework this now. Please convince me > I need to if required.) I think Mark exposed the advantages of using regmap. It's not a mandatory API usage at that point, but since we still have about 4 weeks before the next merge window opens, and since the changes wouldn't be a huge piece of work, I'd recommend switching to it now. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ -- 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
