From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC To: Mark Brown References: <1445863883-5187-1-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <1445863883-5187-6-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <56302514.4090407@samsung.com> <20151028015323.GZ28319@sirena.org.uk> Cc: Alim Akhtar , lee.jones@linaro.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Message-id: <56303054.8060804@samsung.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:17:56 +0900 MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <20151028015323.GZ28319@sirena.org.uk> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 List-ID: On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use. >> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple. > > Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it > being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that > there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is > intended to be the same). Though in the case of a MFD that information > can be obtained from the MFD for the device. We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible. Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared about using the workaround on older DTBs. Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the "same device". Of course maybe there is such need? Alim? Best regards, Krzysztof