[PATCH-V5 3/4] mfd: 88pm800: Set default interrupt clear method

[Vaibhav Hiremath]

On Tuesday 07 July 2015 08:27 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 07 July 2015 06:24 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 07 July 2015 04:48 PM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 07 July 2015 04:42 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday 07 July 2015 04:10 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 07 July 2015 12:59 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As per the spec, bit 1 (INT_CLEAR_MODE) of reg addr 0xe
>>>>>>>>>>> (page 0) controls the method of clearing interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>> status of 88pm800 family of devices;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    0: clear on read
>>>>>>>>>>>    1: clear on write
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If pdata is not coming from board file, then set the
>>>>>>>>>>> default irq clear method to "irq clear on write"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, as suggested by "Lee Jones" renaming variable field
>>>>>>>>>>> to appropriate name.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhao Ye <zhaoy at marvell.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath at linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>   drivers/mfd/88pm800.c       | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>>>>>>>>>>   include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h | 10 ++++++++--
>>>>>>>>>>>   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes certainly, this is another option (rather preferred one).
>>>>>
>>>>> But to be consistent with other's I proposed this, please refer to the
>>>>> fn device_800_init(), where all xxx_init() are taking 2 arguments, and
>>>>> second argument is pdata.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is room for cleanup, I agree.
>>>>> I can put this too in the next cleanup series.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that this is init function, called from probe.
>>>>
>>>> So both approach looks ok to me.
>>>
>>> Please clean up the other.  Function and put it at the front of the
>>> set when you re-submit.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for dumb question here :)
>> I did not understand what do you mean by "in front of the set"?
>>
>> You want to see all the patches into one single series?
>> Or
>> have separate series,
>> 	1. existing DT addition series
>> 	2. new clean-up series
>
> [PATCH v6 0/5] mfd: 88pm800: Add Device tree support
> ├>[PATCH v6 1/5] mfd: 88pm800: Obtain pdata from 'device' rather than passing as parameter
> ├>[PATCH v6 2/5] mfd: 88pm800: Add device tree support
> ├>[PATCH v6 3/5] mfd: 88pm800: Remove unnecessary protection around pdata
> ├>[PATCH v6 4/5] mfd: 88pm800: Set default interrupt clear method
> ├>[PATCH v6 5/5] mfd: devicetree: bindings: Add new 88pm800 mfd binding
>

Thanks Lee,

Just FYI,
I have done some reordering here, because of obvious reasons.

Submitting patches shortly...

Thanks,
Vaibhav