Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC) | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:22:09 -0700 |
| |
On 10/07/2016 04:35 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:01:23PM +0000, Steve Twiss wrote: >> On 07 October 2016 18:02, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >>>> On 06 October 2016 19:49, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 04:28:14PM +0000, Steve Twiss wrote: >>>>>> I am using the compatible string to pick a different configuration .data block: >>>>>> { .compatible = "dlg,da9062-watchdog", .data = &da9062_watchdog_info }, >>>>>> { .compatible = "dlg,da9061-watchdog", .data = &da9061_watchdog_info }, >>>>>> >>>>>> But, it is just my opinion to keep the "name" different. >>>>>> This will not be my decision if accepted into the Linux kernel, but I would like to >>>>>> at least be consistent for DA9061 and DA9062 so ... is this an issue? >>>>> >>>>> FWIW the driver doesn't really need to be updated in the first place. >>>>> A compatible statement listing both da9061 and da9062 would do it. >>>> >>>> I will make the changes you requested: deprecate the existing compatibility >>>> for da9062-watchdog and make a new compatibility string which combines both >>>> da9061 and da9062. >>>> >>> That is not what I asked for. >> >> Ok. Did you mean separate compatible statements with data sections pointing at >> the same structure? >> >> Like this: >> { .compatible = "dlg,da9062-watchdog", .data = &da9062_watchdog_info }, >> { .compatible = "dlg,da9061-watchdog", .data = &da9062_watchdog_info }, >> >> So this would be the only change needed in the device driver. > > If there is no change in IP block then I do not see why we need to > introduce new names at all. The dts can specify fallback compatible > stting. Note, it is called *compatible* not "model" or "device id" or > whatever. So you can just say in DTS: > > compatible = "dlg,da9061-watchdog", "dlg,da9062-watchdog"; > > and leave the driver alone. That goes for input part as well. You only > need to add new compatible to the driver when it in fact is > *incompatible* with the existing blocks. > Yes, exactly.
Thanks, Guenter
| |