Am 2013-11-27 16:30, schrieb Lee Jones: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Stefan Agner wrote: > >> Am 2013-11-27 15:36, schrieb Lee Jones: >> <snip> >> >> Perhaps I should suggest to make TPS6586X_ANY a positive number then, >> >> as a negative value to me indicates more of an error than a generic >> >> parameter. >> I see, its especially confusing since the version is filled using the >> i2c_smbus_read_byte_data functions return value. The version field is a >> 8-Bit value according to the data sheet, I could use 0x100 as >> TPS6586X_ANY identifier. > > How far are we away from using 0xFF? > > I'd be happy to use that and change it _if_ we ever get close. > > If it's likely that it'll be used, then sure 0x100 sounds okay too. Yes, I thought about 0xFF too. The latest device we support is TPS658643 (according to data sheet release dates), which has the smallest version number (03). Since it seems to be a CRC (hence VERSIONCRC) the number is quite random. Also, 0xFF sounds like a bitmask which can mask all versions, but the versions can't be used bitwise... So I would prefer to go with 0x100. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
