Re: [PATCH 0/2] extcon: Intel Cherry Trail Whiskey Cove PMIC and external charger tweaks

From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Yauhen Kharuzhy <jekhor@gmail.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] extcon: Intel Cherry Trail Whiskey Cove PMIC and external charger tweaks
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:33:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4069f988-dda7-4e97-031d-ad494617ab4a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfB3PMBH8qAyHJPfptd0POGq4pey3TkjzU6dZqZ_Vqt+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 15-02-19 10:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:31 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 14-02-19 15:15, Yauhen Kharuzhy wrote:
> 
>> I would do something similar with the fuel-gauge in
>> drivers/platform/x86/intel_cht_int33fe.c, one option would
>> be to simply count the number of resources in the ACPI
>> resource table for the INT33FE device, versions with
>> the Type-C port have 7 resources, where as your INT33FE
>> device has only 3.
>>
>> I'm even thinking that it might be best to rename
>> intel_cht_int33fe.c to intel_cht_int33fe_typec.c and add
>> a check for the resource table having 7 entries there, then
>> you can make a intel_cht_int33fe_micro_usb.c copy and strip
>> that mostly empty. Both would bind to the same "INT33FE"
>> id and they would both silently bail with -ENODEV if the
>> resource-count (or the PTYP value) don't match.
>>
>> The reason I'm thinking of having 2 drivers is because
>> the current intel_cht_int33fe.c is quite special / ugly and
>> already has enough ifs.
>>
>> If you do a stand-alone intel_cht_int33fe_micro_usb.c that can
>> hopefully be much simpler.
>>
>> Andy what is your take on having separate intel_cht_int33fe_typec.c
>> and intel_cht_int33fe_micro_usb.c drivers, both binding to
>> the "INT33FE" ACPI-ID (with its totally !@#%$#-ed up "API") ?
> 
> Depends on how code would look better,

Well the existing drivers/platform/x86/intel_cht_int33fe.c file,
which already is full of kludges would not get even more code-paths
added; and the new file which Yauhen will wrote should be nice and
clean with only 1 straight code-path pretty much.

> though I care about users that
> they will not get additional Kconfig option and broken their
> configurations when new piece of code landed up. So, from mine, as
> user, prospective, we may split driver as we wish, but we should get
> it working as previously for the existing cases.

That is a valid point, I'm not a fan of having even more Kconfig
options either, so we can simply enable/disable both modules through
the same Kconfig option.

Regards,

Hans