From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] I2C: SIS964: Bus driver Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:07:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20120803190758.34e67b1e@endymion.delvare> References: <1344008145-14579-1-git-send-email-amaury.decreme@gmail.com> <20120803180712.1e768042@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Amaury =?UTF-8?B?RGVjcsOqbWU=?= Cc: ben-linux@fluff.org, w.sang@pengutronix.de, rob@landley.net, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, joe@perches.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, dirk.brandewie@gmail.com, jayachandranc@netlogicmicro.com, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:36:36 +0200, Amaury Decr=C3=AAme wrote: > > What is the rationale for not adding support for the new chip to > > i2c-sis630 then? That would probably be a lot easier to review. > > >=20 > I was afraid that adding SIS964 support to i2c-sis630 would lead > to confusion. There's nothing confusing, drivers supporting several devices are legion. If the devices are really almost compatible, reusing an existing driver is the way to go. > I can try to submit a patch for i2c-sis630. In this case, do you thin= k > we should keep the 630 name or change it to something else to > avoid misunderstanding ? Keep the name. It is very common to name drivers by the name of the first supported device, and changing a driver name is always a source of trouble. --=20 Jean Delvare