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 <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > 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. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
