Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-26 Thread Wolfgang Grandegger
Ben Dooks wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:15:09PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > -static void __devinit mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx(struct device_node *node, > - struct mpc_i2c *i2c, > - u32 clock, u32 prescaler

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-26 Thread Ben Dooks
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:15:09PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > >> > > >> -static void __devinit mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx(struct device_node *node, > > >> -struct mpc_i2c *i2c, > > >> -u32 clock, u32 prescaler)

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfram Sang
> I just sent v2. Hope it's OK now. Thanks, will check tomorrow. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang| Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfgang Grandegger
Wolfram Sang wrote: >> overkill to me. I will have a closer look, though. At a minimum I will >> replace "-1" with "MPC_I2C_PRESERVE_CLOCK". > > Might be also an idea to define it with ~0 (clock is still unsigned). If > possible, the code checking for those two cases (0 and "-1") should be close >

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfram Sang
> overkill to me. I will have a closer look, though. At a minimum I will > replace "-1" with "MPC_I2C_PRESERVE_CLOCK". Might be also an idea to define it with ~0 (clock is still unsigned). If possible, the code checking for those two cases (0 and "-1") should be close together. That could be a com

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfgang Grandegger
Wolfram Sang wrote: -static void __devinit mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx(struct device_node *node, - struct mpc_i2c *i2c, - u32 clock, u32 prescaler) +static void __devinit mpc_i2c_setup_52xx(struct device_

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfram Sang
> >> > >> -static void __devinit mpc_i2c_setclock_52xx(struct device_node *node, > >> - struct mpc_i2c *i2c, > >> - u32 clock, u32 prescaler) > >> +static void __devinit mpc_i2c_setup_52xx(struct device_node *node, > >> +

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfgang Grandegger
Hi Wolfram, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:27:08AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> From: Wolfgang Grandegger >> >> The "setclock" initialization functions have been renamed to "setup" >> because I2C interrupts must be enabled for the MPC512x. This requires

Re: [PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfram Sang
Hi Wolfgang, On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:27:08AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > From: Wolfgang Grandegger > > The "setclock" initialization functions have been renamed to "setup" > because I2C interrupts must be enabled for the MPC512x. This requires > to handle "fsl,preserve-clocking" in a

[PATCH 2/3] i2c-mpc: add support for the MPC512x processors from Freescale

2010-01-25 Thread Wolfgang Grandegger
From: Wolfgang Grandegger The "setclock" initialization functions have been renamed to "setup" because I2C interrupts must be enabled for the MPC512x. This requires to handle "fsl,preserve-clocking" in a slighly different way. Also, the old settings are now reported calling dev_dbg(). For the MPC