Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] ACPI / PMIC: Add byt prefix to Crystal Cove PMIC OpRegion driver | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:59:06 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On 25-10-2019 09:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:38:25PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Our current Crystal Cove OpRegion driver is only valid for the >> Crystal Cove PMIC variant found on Bay Trail (BYT) boards, >> Cherry Trail (CHT) based boards use another variant. >> >> At least the regulator registers are different on CHT and these registers >> are one of the things controlled by the custom PMIC OpRegion. >> >> Commit 4d9ed62ab142 ("mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Export separate mfd-cell >> configs for BYT and CHT") has disabled the intel_pmic_crc.c code for CHT >> devices by removing the "crystal_cove_pmic" MFD cell on CHT devices. >> >> This commit renames the intel_pmic_crc.c driver and the cell to be >> prefixed with "byt" to indicate that this code is for BYT devices only. >> >> This is a preparation patch for adding a separate PMIC OpRegion >> driver for the CHT variant of the Crystal Cove PMIC (sometimes called >> Crystal Cove Plus in Android kernel sources). > >> .../acpi/pmic/{intel_pmic_crc.c => intel_pmic_bytcrc.c} | 4 ++-- >> drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c | 2 +- > > I would go with previously established pattern, i.e. intel_pmic_bytcc.c.
Well that would be consistent with the chtwc for the Whiskey Cove, but Crystal Cove related files are shortened to crc in many places already:
Filenames before this patch: drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_crc.c drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c
And to me "cc" stands for the Type-C cc lines, or for Cc: from email, so IMHO it is best to stick with crc here.
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c >> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static struct mfd_cell crystal_cove_byt_dev[] = { >> .resources = gpio_resources, >> }, >> { >> - .name = "crystal_cove_pmic", >> + .name = "byt_crystal_cove_pmic", >> }, >> { >> .name = "crystal_cove_pwm", > > I'm wondering shouldn't we rename the PWM and GPIO for the sake of consistency? > Yes, if a driver is used on both CHT and BYT, let it provide two names.
I believe it is fine to keep the blocks which are identical between the 2 versions as just "crystal_cove_foo", but renaming them is fine with me too, but that follows outside the scope of this series and should be done in a follow-up series IMHO.
Regards,
Hans
| |