[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140428092947.GN6264@lee--X1>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:29:48 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@...aro.org>,
Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave
address space
> > > > > > > s/regmap/Regmap
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than add map. Okay, not as bad
> > > > > > > as I first thought, but still, is there a better naming convention you
> > > > > > > could use?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > addrmap or something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, that was what I was thinking. However, I prefer something along
> > > > > the lines of 'i2c' and 'i2c_sec' or 'client' and 'client_slv' etc.
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, the reason it's addmap{0,1} is that the datasheet has documents
> > > > ADDMAP=0 and the first bank of registers and ADDMAP=1 as the second bank
> > > > of registers. I adopted that to match the docs for the part.
> > > >
> > > > I guess we could do i2c and i2c_sec, I'll just have to put a comment
> > > > correlating it to the h/w. Calling it 'slv' implies something else
> > > > so we should avoid that here. The notion of a "secondary" i2c device
> > > > is completely a Linux I2C subsystem fabrication which wouldn't exist
> > > > if it allowed multiple slave addresses per device. From a h/w
> > > > perspective there is really no primary and secondary relationship.
> > > >
> > > > I'm fine with i2c/i2c_sec or addrmap0/1 and I will just comment to
> > > > correlate with the datasheet..pick one.
> > >
> > > Let's stick method fabricated by the I2C subsystem. It may seem strange
> > > from a h/w perspective, but it is the way we (you) have coded it, as
> > > the first parameter of i2c_new_dummy() is the 'managing' (primary,
> > > parent, master, whatever) device, so '_sec' would suit as an
> > > identifying appendage for the resultant device.
> >
> > That works, I'll also switch to addrmap_[pri|sec] which touches the
> > regulator driver as well. That will keep the relationship between device
> > and regmap clear.
>
> Misspoke...I'm switching regmap[0|1] to regmap_[pri|sec] to keep that
> synced with i2c_[pri|sec]
Sounds good, thanks Matt.
--
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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists