Re: [RFC PATCH 09/13] mfd: rtc: support RTC on ROHM BD71828 with BD70528 driver

[Vaittinen, Matti]

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?

Best Regards
	Matti Vaittinen