All implementations of the functions i2c_reg_read() and i2c_reg_write() are
identical. We can save space and simplify the code by converting these
functions into inlines and putting them in i2c.h.
Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
I'm posting this patch because I'm enhancing the
Wolfgang,
Who is the maintainer for I2C? I don't know who needs to ACK this
patch for it to go in, and I don't know who's supposed to pick it up,
either.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All implementations of the functions i2c_reg_read() and i2c_reg_write
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> -void i2c_reg_write(uchar chip, uchar reg, uchar val)
>> -{
>> -PRINTD("i2c_reg_write: chip=0x%02x, reg=0x%02x, val=0x%02x\n", chip,
>> -reg, val);
>> -i2c_write(chip, reg, 0, &val, 1);
>> -}
>> -
>
> This does not exactly look identical to me.
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> All implementations of the functions i2c_reg_read() and i2c_reg_write() are
> identical. We can save space and simplify the code by converting these
> functions into inlines and putting them in i2c.h.
Actually they are not identical:
Dear Timur,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Who is the maintainer for I2C? I don't know who needs to ACK this
> patch for it to go in, and I don't know who's supposed to pick it up,
> either.
In case there is no specific custodian, I will be the default.
Best regards,
Wolfgang D
Dear Timur,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> The PRINTD is irrelevant. If these platforms really want to debug single I2C
> operations, they can add the code back. It's just debug code, so I would
> think
> that it's not worth sacrificing the improved code simplicity just for that
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is your opinion. I think you cannot really speak for others. I
> think you should ask the respective maintainers of the code first
> before changing their code.
Ok.
> Hm... why didn't the size change, then?
My
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is your opinion. I think you cannot really speak for others. I
> think you should ask the respective maintainers of the code first
> before changing their code.
I think the MAINTAINERS file might be out of date
On Sunday 05 October 2008, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is your opinion. I think you cannot really speak for others. I
> > think you should ask the respective maintainers of the code first
> > before changing their code.
Mike and Cliff,
This I2C patch converts some I2C functions t inline, but in the case
of blackfin and pxa, it removes the PRINTD() call as well. If you're
okay with that, please ACK this patch.
You can find the original patch in the mailing list archive here:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot
Dear Timur,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> All implementations of the functions i2c_reg_read() and i2c_reg_write() are
> identical. We can save space and simplify the code by converting these
> functions into inlines and putting them in i2c.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <[EMAIL P
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> What about resubmitting this patch, with adding a debug() to the new,
> common i2c_reg_read() and i2c_reg_write() funtions?
I can do that. First, however, I need Mike Frysinger to help me resolve the
Blackfin version of i2c_reg_read(), which passes 0 instead of 1 as the le
On Tuesday 14 October 2008, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > What about resubmitting this patch, with adding a debug() to the new,
> > common i2c_reg_read() and i2c_reg_write() funtions?
>
> I can do that. First, however, I need Mike Frysinger to help me resolve
> the Blackfin version
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's broken and i fixed it in the Blackfin i2c read write. feel free to make
> the change and ignore the weirdness.
Ah, thank you! I'll do it after WD pulls your repo.
> i havent been processing any @gentoo.org e-mail
On Sunday 19 October 2008, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > it's broken and i fixed it in the Blackfin i2c read write. feel free to
> > make the change and ignore the weirdness.
>
> Ah, thank you! I'll do it after WD pulls your rep
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> dont wait ... it'll be a bit before i post it, so it'll be easier if i just
> rebase against that
If I post the patch that assumes that that i2c_reg_read() passes 1 instead of 0,
it'll break blackfin.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
___
On Monday 20 October 2008, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > dont wait ... it'll be a bit before i post it, so it'll be easier if i
> > just rebase against that
>
> If I post the patch that assumes that that i2c_reg_read() passes 1 instead
> of 0, it'll break blackfin.
no it wont. as
17 matches
Mail list logo
