Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-28 Thread Lee Jones
s/regmap/Regmap It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-23 Thread Matt Porter
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:21:39AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: s/regmap/Regmap It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. REVISIT:

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-23 Thread Matt Porter
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:01:26PM -0400, Matt Porter wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:21:39AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: s/regmap/Regmap It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms.

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-22 Thread Lee Jones
s/regmap/Regmap It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than add map. Okay, not as bad as

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-17 Thread Lee Jones
s/regmap/Regmap It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than add map. Okay, not as bad as I first thought, but

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-17 Thread Matt Porter
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:57:53AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: s/regmap/Regmap It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) Furry muff; but the comments still stand for the acronyms. addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. REVISIT: Ah, it's

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-17 Thread Matt Porter
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:06:03PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Matt Porter wrote: BCM590xx utilizes a second i2c slave address to access additional s/i2c/I2C register space. Add support for the second address space by instantiated a dummy i2c device with the

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-16 Thread Lee Jones
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Matt Porter wrote: BCM590xx utilizes a second i2c slave address to access additional s/i2c/I2C register space. Add support for the second address space by instantiated a dummy i2c device with the appropriate secondary s/instantiated/instantiating i2c slave address.

Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-16 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:06:03PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: s/regmap/Regmap It's consistently written regmap in all the documentation and so on :) addmap{0,1} doesn't quite sit right with me. REVISIT: Ah, it's address-map, rather than add map. Okay, not as bad as I first thought, but still,

[PATCH 2/4] mfd: bcm590xx: add support for second i2c slave address space

2014-04-14 Thread Matt Porter
BCM590xx utilizes a second i2c slave address to access additional register space. Add support for the second address space by instantiated a dummy i2c device with the appropriate secondary i2c slave address. Expose a second regmap register space so that mfd drivers can access this secondary i2c