From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Crispin Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 08/11] soc: mediatek: PMIC wrap: remove pwrap_is_mt8135() and pwrap_is_mt8173() Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:15:19 +0100 Message-ID: <56AF3E47.9010001@openwrt.org> References: <1453715604-36856-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <1453715604-36856-9-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <56AF3992.8020004@gmail.com> <56AF3AC7.5040001@openwrt.org> <56AF3D67.8080708@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56AF3D67.8080708-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-mediatek" Errors-To: linux-mediatek-bounces+glpam-linux-mediatek=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org On 01/02/2016 12:11, Matthias Brugger wrote: > > > On 01/02/16 12:00, John Crispin wrote: >> >> >> On 01/02/2016 11:55, Matthias Brugger wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 25/01/16 10:53, John Crispin wrote: >>>> With ore SoCs being added the list of helper functions like these would >>> >>> The commit message is something strange: >>> "With every new SoC being added..." maybe? >>> >>>> grow. While at it also add a new flag "bridge" and use that insted of >>> >>> s/insted/instead >>> >>>> pwrap_is_mt8173() where appropriate. >> >> you are lookign at V3 of the series, V4 has this fix done already >> >> [...] >> >> >>>> } >>>> @@ -830,6 +824,7 @@ static struct pmic_wrapper_type pwrap_mt8135 = { >>>> .int_en_all = BIT(31) | BIT(1), >>>> .spi_w = PWRAP_MAN_CMD_SPI_WRITE, >>>> .wdt_src = PWRAP_WDT_SRC_MASK_ALL, >>>> + .has_bridge = 1, >>>> .init_reg_clock = pwrap_mt8135_init_reg_clock, >>>> .init_special = pwrap_mt8135_init_special, >>>> }; >>> >>> Please set has_bridge explicitly for mt8173. >> >> I dont get it. the original code never did that. >> > > has_bridge was introduced by this patch, but you don't set it explicitly > to 0 in pwrap_mt8173. > > Just as I see it, please try to write a summary to every new version of > a patch set which explains what you changed between one version and > another. This will help a lot making the review easier. > > Thanks, > Matthias > You missed the "to zero" part before. now the comment makes sense. I can set it to 0 if it is more obvious for you in that case. general consent is to not declare statics to 0. check_patch.pl will actually complain about those declarations. that is why i was confused. John