Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

[Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>]

On 10/28/2015 09:01 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28.10.2015 12:14, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>> Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like
>> just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc",        S2MPS14X }", since I don't have
>> access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are
>> exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes.
>>
>> Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic
>> is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs.
>
> What kind of confusion in sysfs? I don't see any... and already the
> s2mps14-rtc name is used for S2MPS11 and S2MPS14.
>
> The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was
> probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have
> to make this as a rule...
>
> Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the
> differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and
> compatible.
>
ok, have request s2smp14 UM, will cross check and update accordingly.
Thanks.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>