On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:10 AM, <jonghwa3.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2012년 05월 23일 13:16, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote: > >>>> + max77686_update_reg(i2c, MAX77686_REG_BUCK2CTRL1, >>>> + max77686->ramp_delay << 6, RAMP_MASK); >>>> + max77686_update_reg(i2c, MAX77686_REG_BUCK3CTRL1, >>>> + max77686->ramp_delay << 6, RAMP_MASK); >>>> + max77686_update_reg(i2c, MAX77686_REG_BUCK4CTRL1, >>>> + max77686->ramp_delay << 6, RAMP_MASK); >>>> + >>> >>> >>> Why do you use i2c client still? If you registered regmap you can use >>> its API. I recommend you to use regmap_update_bits() directly. >>> >>> >> >> Yes, we are using regmap_update_bits(). max77686_update_reg() is just >> a wrapper over it. >> > > > Yes, i know what you mean. However it doesn't need max77686_update_reg() > any more since it uses regmap API. Why don't you just pass iodev->regmap > to regmap_update_bits(). It is clear that there is no reason for using > i2c client as a medium. Please check regulator and mfd driver of my > previous patch. > I agree with you we can use directly regmap API. But I preferred max77686_update_reg() because its a common practice to use common read/write API which we define in mfd driver to access that particular mfd device from other drivers. Regards, Yadwinder. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |