Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752918AbcD1Iv6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:51:58 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:36465 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751907AbcD1Ivy (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:51:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:51:55 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Laxman Dewangan Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, gnurou@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, swarren@nvidia.com, treding@nvidia.com, Mallikarjun Kasoju Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024 Message-ID: <20160428085155.GL4892@dell> References: <1459348188-11726-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1459348188-11726-3-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20160427151947.GD4892@dell> <572104AA.7080500@nvidia.com> <20160428072559.GK4892@dell> <5721B962.4090503@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5721B962.4090503@nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3062 Lines: 86 On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:55 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > > >>On Wednesday 27 April 2016 08:49 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >>>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >>> > >>>>+#define MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES(_name, _res) \ > >>>>+ { \ > >>>>+ .name = (_name), \ > >>>>+ .resources = (_res), \ > >>>>+ .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE((_res)), \ > >>>>+ } > >>>I'm *still* not accepting this. > >>> > >>>>+ > >>>>+static struct mfd_cell max20024_children[] = { > >>>>+ MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-pinctrl"), > >>>>+ MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES("max20024-gpio", gpio_resources), > >>>>+ MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-pmic"), > >>>>+ MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES("max77620-rtc", rtc_resources), > >>>>+ MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES("max20024-power", power_resources), > >>>>+ MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-watchdog"), > >>>>+ MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-clock"), > >>>>+}; > >>>If you want this submission to be accepted this cycle, you're going to > >>>have to convert this to the traditional way of defining MFD children. > >>Yaah, I want to have this in current cycle. > >>Will it be fine as follows? (To have quick agreement) > >> > >>static const struct mfd_cell max77620_children[] = { > >> { > >> .name = "max77620-pinctrl", > >> }, { > >> .name = "max77620-gpio", > >> .resource = gpio_resources, > >> .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio_resources), > >> }, { > >> /* and so on */ > >> }, > >>}; > >Yes. Although, if there are no run-time ordering dependencies, I > >usually like to a) have the one line entries on one line i.e. > > > > { .name = "max77620-pinctrl" } > > > >... and b) for all the one line entries to be grouped together and > >the multi line ones grouped together as well. > > > > > It is turning like as follows: > > static const struct mfd_cell max77620_children[] = { > { .name = "max77620-pinctrl", }, > { .name = "max77620-clock", }, > { .name = "max77620-pmic", }, > { .name = "max77620-watchdog", }, > { > .name = "max77620-gpio", > .resources = gpio_resources, > .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio_resources), > }, { > .name = "max77620-rtc", > .resources = rtc_resources, > .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(rtc_resources), > }, { > .name = "max77620-power", > .resources = power_resources, > .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(power_resources), > }, { > .name = "max77620-thermal", > .resources = thermal_resources, > .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(thermal_resources), > }, > }; > > Will it be fine? Yes, looks good. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog