Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] iio: accel: adxl345: Add SPI support

[Eva Rachel Retuya <eraretuya@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:58:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote:
> > On 02/23/2017 05:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Eva Rachel Retuya <eraretuya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Add SPI driver that initializes SPI regmap for the adxl345 core driver.
> >>> The driver supports the same functionality as I2C namely the x, y, z and
> >>> scale readings.
> 
> >>>  config ADXL345_I2C
> >>>         tristate
> >>>         select REGMAP_I2C
> >>>
> >>> +config ADXL345_SPI
> >>> +       tristate
> >>> +       select REGMAP_SPI
> >>
> >> Hmm...
> >> I saw another pattern
> >>
> >> Library / core part is non-visible to user, while
> >> SPI and I2C parts are selectable by user.
> >>
> >> Why do you use inverted pattern? What did I miss?
> >
> > The first version of the patch used the other pattern SPI/I2C visible.
> > Jonathan suggested this other pattern. I prefer the explicit SPI/I2C visible
> > pattern, but in the end it doesn't really matter as long as both work.
> 
> Yes, but this pattern makes extra footprint of the kernel and
> basically dead code when I would like, for example, to have SPI bus
> enabled, I2C module available, but SPI module not compiled.
> 
> Other one is when I want to have one compiled in, one as a module by
> whatever reason.
> 
> At the end I have no strong opinion, though rationale for the opposite is above.
> 

Hello Lars and Andy,

I'll revert to the explicit SPI/I2C pattern in order to give more
freedom in configuring as per the scenarios previously stated.

Thanks,
Eva

> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko