From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.131]:63166 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755016AbaGRLR4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:17:56 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Naveen Krishna Ch Cc: Chanwoo Choi , jic23@kernel.org, My self , Kukjin Kim , robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, t.figa@samsung.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/4] iio: adc: exynos_adc: Add exynos_adc_data structure to improve readability Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:16:53 +0200 Message-ID: <237819296.s52Lu0h5nW@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: References: <1405663186-26464-1-git-send-email-cw00.choi@samsung.com> <6186153.TIYp5NXPIq@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On Friday 18 July 2014 15:41:27 Naveen Krishna Ch wrote: > > > > { > > .name = "s3c24xx-adc", > > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV1, > > }, { > > .name = "s3c2443-adc", > > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV11, > > }, { > > .name = "s3c2416-adc", > > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV12, > > }, { > > .name = "s3c64xx-adc", > > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV2, > > }, { > > .name = "samsung-adc-v3", > > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV3, > > } > > > > Where TYPE_ADCV3 seems to be the same as the new ADC_V1 used in this > > driver. Do you have an explanation for that? > > As per suggestion from Doug Anderson, > I've implemented IIO based ADC driver to work with Exynos5250. > keeping the plat-samsung/adc.c unchanged. > > Assuming Exynos5250 is the one using the driver for the first time. > i've named it v1 and so on. > > Now, This seems to cause a lot of confusion. Ah, so the version numbers don't come from Samsung hardware documents but are just counting the versions we have drivers for? In this case, I guess using the first SoC that had a particular version would have been better, and we should probably do that when we add support for the older hardware in this driver. Arnd