On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Stefan Agner wrote: > 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. Deal! -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
