On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:56:51PM +0530, Jayachandran C. wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:41:36PM +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> > >>>>> "J" == Jayachandran C <jayachandranc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > J> From: Ganesan Ramalingam <ganesanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > J> Deprecate 'regstep' property and use the standard 'reg-shift' property
> > J> for register offset shifts. 'regstep' will still be supported as an
> > J> optional property, but will give a warning when used.
> >
> > ..
> >
> > J> struct ocores_i2c_platform_data {
> > J> - u32 regstep; /* distance between registers */
> > J> - u32 clock_khz; /* input clock in kHz */
> > J> - u8 num_devices; /* number of devices in the devices list */
> > J> + u32 reg_shift; /* register offset shift value */
> > J> + u32 clock_khz; /* input clock in kHz */
> > J> + u8 num_devices; /* number of devices in the devices list */
> > J> struct i2c_board_info const *devices; /* devices connected to the bus */
> > J> };
> >
> > Why not just keep this change to the dt bindings, instead of risking
> > breaking stuff for platform drivers as well? There's no conceptual
> > reason why reg_shift is any better than regstep.
>
> This is to keep the names and meanings of platform property and DT
> property same. Having two ways (setting regstep in platform code or
> setting 'reg-shift' in DT) of specifying the same parameter is not
> a nice.
>
> There is only one user of this API in the whole kernel tree, which
> is fixed as part of the patchset.
>
> Also we make sure that we do not break existing DTBs by still accepting
> 'regstep' property.
Any further comments on this patchset? If the changes are fine, an Acked-by
would be really aeppreciated.
Thanks,
JC.
--
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
