On 17/10/2019 10:36:44+0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > Hello Alexandre, > > Thanks for quick check! I'll be off for the rest of the week but I will > re-work this patch at next week :) I agree with you regarding most of > the comments. > > > > + > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * RTC definitions shared between > > > + * > > > + * BD70528 > > > + * and BD71828 > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_SEC 0x7f > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_MINUTE 0x7f > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_24H 0x80 > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_PM 0x20 > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR 0x3f > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_DAY 0x3f > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_WEEK 0x07 > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_MONTH 0x1f > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_YEAR 0xff > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_ALM_EN 0x7 > > > + > > > > All that renaming is distracting and useless. Please resubmit without > > renaming defines, structs and functions to make it easier to review. > > I would prefer renaming because it makes it clearly visible which > defines/structs/functions are common for both PMICs and which are PMIC > specific. But I really understand the problem of spotting real changes. > Would it be Ok if I did renaming in separate patch which does not bring > in any other changes - and then the functional changes in separate > patch? >
No, unless you can guarantee that all future PMICs from rohm matching the wildcard will use this driver. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
