From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756771AbcJGO4d convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:56:33 -0400 Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.138]:32875 "EHLO mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753368AbcJGO4Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:56:25 -0400 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1WSa0gUYRSG+3ZnxlF2bFwv+yVqtQRZuqZFNQS SEcVEBUKkFVGNNblDuyo7a61BsP0I0kjM7bp5rw1SU/CSmquZN8rMMhdNu6r7w9Wwcr1EhjTj aNn36/nOe973nB8Hlytn0UCcNRlZQxKjU2NeyLE62yZNds1MfOSzS2HUjUEnRuW3dqFUS9EIo PIdvSj1eaoNUNOOyzKqf2IapXqe5GCU+2oroN6VNXpQzsJOGWXr65ZRlxpahe9gJkYN3B5BY5 bTpXmlgK6zfvSgeysD6Ht2l4yuKE7H6A+9doyumzF70O6KkFj8CMolJSSbTqDan9/vIil5y03 vmwgzKFFkAC9cSdoAfNnZ5JEBPHGMjIJ5X78Bkf1IGtaM2RCxSU42IHDK3Tjf5EvugtaWWbnU tBt+udWFSLwNtjXb0QyA4wi5BrZPp4hlgoyF10tm5jOV5DlY6rChInuSG+EbS8e8FZDBcPJiy XyknFTBAWe+TGRIkvC+/bVcYn/oGp5DJV4JH/1yLtS3w7FP44jEG+DQ8BCQOAoW32xaqG+Fvz 6+kkn54bCgfgKTOAw+KByTS3v6wBd3nEgWUFmXrGFdYrEusViXWAoAUgzW8qzhLGvQbI1IMHC JWqOe4XSaqMjNEXqW55lEVsck8BEnk/UVQDiKZcKrBe2Wnc1gBS5T+xOutJl4pXdC8qk0LcNr jxtSdSzfDIJwXA2J9mpB8zGwiazpNKcTLmtRhrhC7UeoHwsywacwep5LlKQOsDpQRcyJPlIUt KlJf22LN/kWBAf6EkBYRKlIYQ16zvi/PgpUOFD7EtFivIJLMv5NHxUGy4TBybZJcbCR+ScFms GZ3P3nDyMX9rXGjaZn7FUeGB4q11TUhuSq1JT3Nc7rJvN8f30OVosXTE1m2l1z+vI+rqpbE2p at6O2SF/iN3u02lg1Hp23qn/Zngtsx0RW0MP0K7/jDqnSmuJf/Oh6HoPE+GaTT3vk99yfy8oP RugGKr1uKRzhWVtCA+xmi9miRngtE7VebuCZP/pDafqOAwAA X-Env-Sender: stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-178.messagelabs.com!1475852178!63376284!1 X-Originating-IP: [94.185.165.51] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 8.84; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked From: Steve Twiss To: Guenter Roeck , Wim Van Sebroeck CC: Lee Jones , Dmitry Torokhov , Eduardo Valentin , "Zhang Rui" , DEVICETREE , LINUX-INPUT , LINUX-PM , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , Support Opensource , LINUX-KERNEL , LINUX-WATCHDOG Subject: RE: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC) Thread-Topic: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC) Thread-Index: AdIf7G3rx3dSmMT2SJSSLbYW3V4nogADY1aAABxkNkA= Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:56:17 +0000 Message-ID: <6ED8E3B22081A4459DAC7699F3695FB7018CCE2732@SW-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com> References: <6ED8E3B22081A4459DAC7699F3695FB7018CCE242C@SW-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com> <20161006184927.GB11915@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20161006184927.GB11915@roeck-us.net> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.20.26.77] x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled x-kse-serverinfo: sw-ex-cashub02.diasemi.com, 9 x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 07/10/2016 12:39:00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06 October 2016 19:49, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC) > > Hi Steve, [...] > 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 }, > > > > when the only real difference between the DA9061 and DA9062 watchdog driver > > is the name. Functionally they are identical in this case. [...] > > 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. > > [...] > > 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. > My reason for doing this was to report the hardware identification, not the driver name. But, there would certainly be a lot less to do if I was to make DA9061 core use the DA9062 watchdog. > 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. Regards, Stephen