Hello Krzysztof, On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27.01.2016 12:36, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: [snip] >> >> + if (!info->drv_data->separate_i2c_addr) >> + info->max77686->rtc_regmap = info->max77686->regmap; >> + > > At this stage I don't like the idea of messing with parent's state > structure. The driver should not modify any of parents data (the best > way would be to take a pointer to const). In this patch this looks like > breaking the encapsulation. If the parent is responsible for regmaps, > then the parent should set rtc_regmap for children (parent also knows > what type device it is working on). > > ...but I am assuming that a new patch will be following this one - the > patch moving ownership of i2c dummy and regmap to the RTC driver. In > that case this code makes a lot more sense. Am I thinking correctly? > You assumption is correct. Modifying the parent's state is indeed a layering violation but I did this to keep the changes self contained in the RTC subsystem and avoid touching the MFD driver. But this will be cleaned by Laxman once he moves the regmap initialization from the MFD driver to the RTC. > Best regards, > Krzysztof Best regards, Javier -- 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
 |