[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171029175257.dfmf5642zfszoxe3@ninjato>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:52:57 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@...il.com>,
Paul Parsons <lost.distance@...oo.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: pxa: move header file out of deprecated i2c folder
Hi Robert,
I had a look again at this patch.
> > include/linux/i2c is deprecated because too many platform_data of i2c
> > clients incorrectly ended up there. The few still relevant include files
> > for I2C bus masters with their platform_data have been moved to the
> > platform_data directory. This final one, PXA, is not entirely
> > platform_data, so it is simply moved one layer up. After that, the i2c
> > subfolder can finally go soon.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
>
> I'm sorry I completely missed this one.
> Either it's too late and trash this mail, or it's not, and then I'd suggest
> another approach :
> - patch 1 : move include/linux/i2c/pxa-i2c.h to include/platform_data/i2c-pxa.h
> (i2c-pxa.h and not pxa-i2c.h to be consistent)
> - patch 2 : move this chunk to arch/arm/mach-pxa/devices.h
> > extern void pxa_set_i2c_info(struct i2c_pxa_platform_data *info);
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PXA27x
> > extern void pxa27x_set_i2c_power_info(struct i2c_pxa_platform_data *info);
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PXA3xx
> > extern void pxa3xx_set_i2c_power_info(struct i2c_pxa_platform_data *info);
> > #endif
>
> This is the cleanest approach I could think of.
Wouldn't it be even cleaner if patch 1 & 2 above would be swapped? First
move the chunk, then rename the file?
And is there a branch I should base this on? Currently, I am thinking of
basing this patch on for-next and then submit it around rc1 time.
Does that make sense to you?
Regards,
Wolfram
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists