On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Mark Brown < broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:10:39AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:43:58PM -0700, Peter Hsiang wrote:
I checked with hardware engineering and was told 0x40=RevA, 0x41=RevB..
Would a raw value or the use of a 0x3F bit mask be more acceptable?
I don't mind (though it does seem like the high bit isn't part of the actual data), it was just that it's a common error to assume that die revisions and package revisions correspond directly.
This means if you're OK with it I can apply the patch as-is, BTW.
Please let me know if you'd like me to continue splitting this patch into two changes.
(Also, informationally, max98088.c also uses a constant instead of ARRAY_SIZE in the same context. I don't know if it suffers from the same hardware revision output issue, as I don't have that hardware...)
thutt