Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series

[Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, Karel Balej wrote:

> Lee,
> 
> On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 11:54 AM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The subject needs work.  Please tell us what the patches is doing.
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Karel Balej wrote:
> >
> > > From: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>
> >
> > A full an complete commit message is a must.
> 
> I have not provided a detailed description here because as I have noted
> in the cover letter, this patch will be squashed into the MFD series. I
> sent it only as a bridge between the two series, sorry for the
> confusion.
> 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> > >  	unsigned int whoami;
> > >  	struct reg_sequence *presets;
> > >  	unsigned int num_presets;
> > > +	struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > > +	unsigned int num_devs;
> >
> > Why are you adding extra abstraction?
> 
> Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
> support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
> as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
> abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
> is also chip-specific?

Even if you were to support multiple devices, this strategy is unusual
and isn't likely to be accepted.

With respect to the other variables, you are in a better position to
know if they are still required.  By the sounds of it, I'd suggest it
might be better to remove them.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]