Hi,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:06:04PM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
>
>> +static struct regmap_config smsc_regmap_config = {
>> + .reg_bits = 8,
>> + .val_bits = 8,
>> + .max_register = SMSC_MAX_REGISTER - 1;
>> + .cache_type = REGCACHE_COMPRESSED,
>> +};
>
> That definition of max_register looks wrong - why are we subtracting 1
> from a macro called MAX_REGISTER to get it?
>
Yes, my bad.
Actually, I have define in .h file something like this..
#define SMSC_MAX_REG (SMSC_VEN_ID_H
+ 1) where
SMSC_VEN_ID_H is the last register address which this chip supports.
I think I should directly assign max_address to SMSC_VEN_ID_H. ?
+
+
> Indentation here is a bit odd too.
>
Will rectify.
>> +static int smsc_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Remove empty functions.
Ok.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
