From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752190AbaBNK7L (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:59:11 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:43314 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751585AbaBNK7J (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:59:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140214101949.GD9462@lee--X1> References: <1392177760-17959-1-git-send-email-lpapp@kde.org> <20140212175018.GJ28112@sirena.org.uk> <20140214101949.GD9462@lee--X1> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:59:08 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yKlW9FYfvWv3tcjApJ2y0VOTojM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mfd: MAX6650/6651 support From: Laszlo Papp To: Lee Jones Cc: Mark Brown , Linus Walleij , LKML , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sachin Kamat , Jean Delvare , Guenter Roeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >> >> + mutex_init(&max665x->iolock); >> > >> > What is this needed for? >> >> It was done for consistency with the other mfd drivers (maxim), e.g. >> 8997 or 8998 as the closest resemblence in this family. Would you >> prefer me removing this mutex locker? > > If you're not using mutexes, why would you need to initialise it? Yeah, I had the same thought about an hour ago that this sneaked in because I was not originally using regmap, but now with the regmap usage, it is just a left-over. So, it is not even for consistency anymore. I was wrong claiming that.