On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 17:55 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote: > - Factor out all _master() part of code from i2c-designware-core > and i2c-designware-platdrv to separate functions. > - Standardize all code related with MASTER modes. >
Couple of comments, after addressing them Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > + if ((dev->master_cfg & DW_IC_CON_MASTER) && > + (dev->master_cfg & DW_IC_CON_SLAVE_DISABLE)) > + i2c_dw_configure_fifo_master(dev); So, logically it's a part of slave patch. For now it would be just i2c_dw_configure_fifo_master(dev); > +static irqreturn_t i2c_dw_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = dev_id; > + u32 stat, enabled, mode; mode is unused here, this is a part of slave patch either. > +static void i2c_dw_configure_master(struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ > + struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "I am registed as a I2C Master!\n"); I don't want bikeshedding here, but the question just comes: "Do we need to have this available via sysfs as a part of ABI?" So. user space can check for / set a mode. In any case this one is a separate story and another patch, here just to make the message less annoying, it looks like dev_dbg() to me. -- Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy
