From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
DEVICETREE <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
LINUX-INPUT <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
LINUX-PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@diasemi.com>,
LINUX-KERNEL <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LINUX-WATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC)
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:49:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161006184927.GB11915@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ED8E3B22081A4459DAC7699F3695FB7018CCE242C@SW-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com>
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 04:28:14PM +0000, Steve Twiss wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 06 October 2016 14:28, Guenter Roeck, wrote:
>
> > To: Steve Twiss; LINUX-KERNEL; LINUX-WATCHDOG; Wim Van Sebroeck
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver
>
> [...]
>
> > > @@ -180,6 +180,11 @@ static const struct watchdog_info da9062_watchdog_info = {
> > > .identity = "DA9062 WDT",
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static const struct watchdog_info da9061_watchdog_info = {
> > > + .options = WDIOF_SETTIMEOUT | WDIOF_KEEPALIVEPING,
> > > + .identity = "DA9061 WDT",
> >
> > This adds a lot of complexity to the driver just to be able to display "DA9061".
> > Why not just change the existing identity to "DA9061/DA9062 WDT" ?
>
> This is true.
> 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 },
>
> when the only real difference between the DA9061 and DA9062 watchdog driver
> is the name. Functionally they are identical in this case.
> This was a similar comment in Dialog's internal review on this exact same point.
> "Why not just report one thing?"
>
> My answer to that was because it would allow to distinguish between different chips.
> The watchdog driver would report the correct chip type, despite the driver always
> being for DA9062.
>
> This exact same thing would happen with da9063-onkey and da9062-thermal also.
> For the ONKEY it is marginally confused by needing to support 63, but for 62 and 61
> it is the same thing. Only the name is different.
>
> I have TO:'d Dmitry Torokhov; Eduardo Valentin; Zhang Rui, for that reason.
>
> 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?
>
Yes, for me it is. The driver is still the same, and I don't see the point
of increasing code size and making the driver less readable just to be able
to report a slightly different driver identification string. And each time
a similar HW is added we would go through the same effort, again for no good
reason.
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. Plus,
on top of that, even your change would not guarantee that the output is correct.
A DT entry with lists da9061 compatibility on a da9062 system would report the
"wrong" name. And still work. So I really don't see the point.
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-06 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-06 16:28 [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC) Steve Twiss
2016-10-06 18:49 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2016-10-07 14:56 ` Steve Twiss
2016-10-07 17:02 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-10-07 18:01 ` Steve Twiss
2016-10-07 23:35 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2016-10-08 0:22 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-10-08 6:33 ` Steve Twiss
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161006184927.GB11915@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=Support.Opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=edubezval@gmail.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).