Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:40:37 +0000
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/4] mfd: arizona: Use regmap_read_poll_timeout
 instead of hard coding it
Message-ID: <20170315144037.GH6986@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1489051715-4774-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <1489051715-4774-4-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <20170314170704.yfxy73v5jc2vj7zh@dell>
 <20170314184425.GE6986@localhost.localdomain>
 <20170315121703.y6w7up5vqe3ih7ju@dell>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170315121703.y6w7up5vqe3ih7ju@dell>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1580
Lines: 38

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:17:03PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Charles Keepax wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:07:04PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, 09 Mar 2017, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > > 
> > > > arizona_poll_reg essentially hard-codes regmap_read_poll_timeout, this
> > > > patch updates the implementation to use regmap_read_poll_timeout. We
> > > > still keep arizona_poll_reg around as regmap_read_poll_timeout is a
> > > > macro so rather than expand this for each caller keep it wrapped in
> > > > arizona_poll_reg.
> > > > 
> > > > Whilst we are doing this make the timeouts a little more generous as the
> > > > previous system had a bit more slack as it was done as a delay per
> > > > iteration of the loop whereas regmap_read_poll_timeout compares ktime's.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mfd/arizona-core.c | 38 ++++++++++++++------------------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Apart from patch count, is there any technical reason why this patch
> > > shouldn't just be rolled into patch 3?
> > > 
> > 
> > I prefer it as two patches as its clearer what happened from the
> > history. One patch changes the interface for the function, the
> > other updates the implementation. Can squash if you feel strongly
> > about it though?
> 
> I don't feel that strongly about it, but to me it looks like patch 4
> reworks everything patch 3 did.
> 

I will spin a new version and squash them.

Thanks,
Charles