From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: blogic@openwrt.org (John Crispin) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:44:45 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V2 4/4] mfd: mediatek: add MT6323 support to MT6397 driver In-Reply-To: <20160126083433.GX3368@x1> References: <1453716887-38442-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <20160125124112.GG3368@x1> <56A64108.7020807@openwrt.org> <3476571.0yU9yvPsKF@linux-gy6r.site> <56A670A3.5030100@openwrt.org> <1453777643.26374.11.camel@mtksdaap41> <56A71CE5.4080201@openwrt.org> <20160126083433.GX3368@x1> Message-ID: <56A731FD.6080702@openwrt.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 26/01/2016 09:34, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, John Crispin wrote: >> On 26/01/2016 04:07, Henry Chen wrote: >>> On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 19:59 +0100, John Crispin wrote: >>>> >>>> On 25/01/2016 19:44, Matthias Brugger wrote: >>>>> On Monday 25 Jan 2016 16:36:40 John Crispin wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:41, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>>>> Please honour the subject format of the subsystem you are contributing >>>>>>> to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> `git log --oneline -- $subsystem` gives you this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, John Crispin wrote: >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Crispin >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> @@ -261,6 +271,15 @@ static int mt6397_probe(struct platform_device >>>>>>>> *pdev) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> switch (id & 0xff) { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + case MT6323_CID_CODE: >>>>>>>> + mt6397->int_con[0] = MT6323_INT_CON0; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is confusing. You're still using memory allocated for a mt6397 >>>>>>> device. >>>>>> >>>>>> the variable is currently defined as struct mt6397_chip *mt6397; >>>>>> shall i only change the name or also create a patch to rename the struct ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think we should rename the struct and the file as well. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Matthias >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> that would have been my next question. renaming the struct would imply >>>> renaming the driver and the whole namespace contained within. We would >>>> then also need to change the Kconfig and Makefile. I am happy to do this >>>> but want to be sure that is is actually wanted. >>>> >>>> John >>> Hi, >>> >>> Since mt6323 was similar with mt6397, I think we can reuse the >>> mt6397_chip without duplicate code. >>> >>> Maybe we can rename the local variable name to avoid confusing. >>> >>> struct mt6397_chip *mt_pmic; >>> ... >>> ... >>> switch (id & 0xff) { >>> case MT6323_CID_CODE: >>> mt_pmic->int_con[0] = MT6323_INT_CON0; >>> mt_pmic->int_con[1] = MT6323_INT_CON1; >>> ... >>> ... >>> >>> Henry >> >> Hi, >> >> IMHO we should either rename the namespace or not. renaming some >> variables seems weird as that will just move the confusion/inconsistency >> to another place in the code. I am however rather indifferent on this >> matter. > > It's common to name a driver after the device which was enabled first, > so no need to rename the files or CONFIGs; however, it does seem > prudent to generify the struct (both parts). > Hi Lee, fine, how would you like me to name the struct. would "struct mtk_pmic" be ok ? John