Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] iio: dac: ad5446: Move to single chip_info structures

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 03:05:41PM +0000, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-10-31 at 15:47 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 12:31:25PM +0000, Nuno Sá via B4 Relay wrote:

...

> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5310_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL_POWERDOWN(10, 16, 2),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5320_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL_POWERDOWN(12, 16, 0),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5444_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(12, 16, 2),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5446_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(14, 16, 0),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5450_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(8, 16, 6),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5451_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(10, 16, 4),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5541a_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(16, 16, 0),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5512a_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(12, 16, 4),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5553_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(14, 16, 0),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > 
> > > +static const struct ad5446_chip_info ad5600_chip_info = {
> > > +	.channel = AD5446_CHANNEL(16, 16, 0),
> > > +	.write = ad5446_write,
> > > +};
> > 
> > Seems same as ad5541a_chip_info(). Do we need duplicates _now_?
> 
> Yeah, it seems it was a duplicate before. I guess it could be a precursor
> patch. Or if there's no real need for a re-spin (other than this), it
> could be a follow up one, maybe?

Ideally, if possible to implement, this should be a precursor cleanup.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko