Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:03:47 +0530 | From | Alim Akhtar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC |
| |
On 10/28/2015 09:01 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28.10.2015 12:14, Alim Akhtar wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> >>>>> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use. >>>>> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple. >>>> >>>> Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it >>>> being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that >>>> there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is >>>> intended to be the same). Though in the case of a MFD that information >>>> can be obtained from the MFD for the device. >>> >>> We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible. >>> Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared >>> about using the workaround on older DTBs. >>> >>> Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of >>> S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the >>> "same device". >>> >>> Of course maybe there is such need? Alim? >>> >> Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like >> just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc", S2MPS14X }", since I don't have >> access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are >> exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes. >> >> Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic >> is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs. > > What kind of confusion in sysfs? I don't see any... and already the > s2mps14-rtc name is used for S2MPS11 and S2MPS14. > > The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was > probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have > to make this as a rule... > > Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the > differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and > compatible. > ok, have request s2smp14 UM, will cross check and update accordingly. Thanks. > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
| |