From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF18C158867; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:27:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713968828; cv=none; b=CKwA1RrnVuqTsZlESELDm0MvdGaYE8GHGNHfjO6RmDsgmBq5+As2b4FP7hhzIpCIsAwzI7WXqna3Eg4eTzpqesbn8XdrohHmjlKCCZymfFInbMww0xt48Y25wk7B6Oc7H4qTnZ1MadfSOtrfkPOWPQXEOLXNhI3ikduawqcJzcg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713968828; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3MRo09CAl1dLk8i/k1FkOLA4olAcV60dDi76ojCmJQc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nj5ryYW1/rCcIrjaj630gI+G78LJX9TBsyUUFxPTC3grgyCbduysz22J7nJx6zT/MRke8hgiMfODJpg29ieZ81R0ONkzw3b0G0xImU3mxQwdrpGvbEEcMwZc1/O3Eylp/LqT74/B5w49qpePwEEuqwKIlgoNjBuapBps1OHdLbM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: iBK17G9IRNKOryzqC5l5Wg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: MvoGg2vjTkqjvrnHp5J1MA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11054"; a="9453980" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,226,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="9453980" Received: from orviesa008.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.148]) by fmvoesa112.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Apr 2024 07:26:54 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: skyNPZ5NT525XUblwMmtLQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: dtI6JwCJQhSpTBVzz2mZ4g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,226,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="25343374" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by orviesa008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Apr 2024 07:26:50 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rzdaA-00000000fsk-2vqd; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:26:46 +0300 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:26:46 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Florian Fainelli Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jarkko Nikula , Mika Westerberg , Jan Dabros , Andi Shyti , Lee Jones , Jiawen Wu , Mengyuan Lou , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Maciej Fijalkowski , Andrew Lunn , Duanqiang Wen , "open list:SYNOPSYS DESIGNWARE I2C DRIVER" , "open list:WANGXUN ETHERNET DRIVER" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Define i2c_designware in a header file Message-ID: References: <20240423233622.1494708-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 06:21:21PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 4/23/2024 4:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:36:18PM -0700, Florian Fainelli kirjoitti: > > > This patch series depends upon the following two patches being applied: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-1-duanqiangwen@net-swift.com/ > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-2-duanqiangwen@net-swift.com/ > > > > > > There is no reason why each driver should have to repeat the > > > "i2c_designware" string all over the place, because when that happens we > > > see the reverts like the above being necessary. > > > > Isn't that a part of ABI between drivers, i.e. whenever ones want to > > request_module() or so they need to know what they are doing, no? > > Yes, the drivers should know, but as evidenced by the two patches above, > there was still room for error. If we have to abide by a certain contract, > which is platform_driver::driver::name, then we might as well have a header > defining it no? Maybe, I simply don't like the manipulations with parts of the device instance names / driver IDs / driver name, which all become mixed after this series. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko