From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754102AbcCBE2s (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:28:48 -0500 Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:60851 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750813AbcCBE2r (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:28:47 -0500 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f79b16d000005389-5d-56d66bfbdd9a Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc: max77686: Add support for MAX20024/MAX77620 RTC IP To: Laxman Dewangan , alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com, a.zummo@towertech.it References: <1456750705-13579-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <56D63A9C.20506@samsung.com> <56D64CAC.5030704@nvidia.com> <56D6636F.6090403@samsung.com> <56D667AC.5030400@nvidia.com> Cc: cw00.choi@samsung.com, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, javier@osg.samsung.com, rklein@nvidia.com From: Krzysztof Kozlowski X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-id: <56D66BF6.60403@samsung.com> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:28:38 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <56D667AC.5030400@nvidia.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xK7q/s6+FGVy/IWqx5OJVdouOa4uZ LK5/ec5q8ebtGiaL1y8MLZbuW81icXnXHDaLZcdXs1rs7+xgdOD0eLLpIqPHnokn2Tx6m9+x eWzpv8vu0bdlFaPH9Hk/mTw+b5ILYI/isklJzcksSy3St0vgypjX/Z2t4KpQxYkX3SwNjJP4 uxg5OSQETCT+Hl7KAmGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0hgKaPEkrPPmSCcp4wSS48vAKri4BAWCJC4eUwR xBQRyJA4ucATouQAo8T07T3MIA6zQAOjxPnejewgU9kEjCU2L1/CBrFBTqK3exLYNl4BDYmP kyYzg9gsAqoSn478ZwSxRQUiJA53drFD1AhK/Jh8D2wvp4CWxJr9piAms4CexP2LWiAVzALy EpvXvGWewCg4C0nDLISqWUiqFjAyr2IUTS1NLihOSs810itOzC0uzUvXS87P3cQIiY+vOxiX HrM6xCjAwajEw5vx6WqYEGtiWXFl7iFGCQ5mJRHe2vRrYUK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlY lMR5Z+56HyIkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpgNFw2sbi1dEeA9COzE3dcP1jE2u9RmHBi0re5 B6b4Lm9+pdf8pK61lIldrZKXoWONz4TJ5VFcvbP9De6axLxTnz8pbHr4nN/3tyizRkRXsc3/ u3evPp9MyMqK9K/M+4z5XFb2GrkqJore/VG6V+9egmXidZHcZjP2hLMX0stOvzrkcuPV3pt2 SizFGYmGWsxFxYkAVoZw94sCAAA= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02.03.2016 13:10, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 March 2016 09:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 02.03.2016 11:15, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> >>>>> (kernel_ulong_t)&max77802_drv_data, }, >>>>> + { "max77620-rtc", .driver_data = >>>>> (kernel_ulong_t)&max77620_drv_data, }, >>>>> + { "max20024-rtc", .driver_data = >>>>> (kernel_ulong_t)&max77620_drv_data, }, >>>> There shouldn't be "max20024-rtc". This is exactly the same as >>>> "max77620-rtc" so re-use existing id. No point of duplicating device >>>> names for 100% compatible devices. >>>> >>>> >>> I am thinking that having compatible for each device which it supports >>> is better. >>> >>> In MFD, I have made all sub module of max20024 as max20024-. >>> I have not mixed the sub module name for max20024 with max77620 module. >> The point of compatible is to be... compatible so you don't create >> compatibles for the same meaning! >> >> However this is actually not a compatible but a matching name... which >> should follow the same idea. You did not give any argument why this is >> better. > > My point is that if any driver supporting the any devices then it should > be there in their compatibility although other everything is same. Nope. The driver can describe supported devices in comment, Kconfig, module description, DT binding description but the compatible is one. One compatible for all compatible devices. > This way, it is easy to find that the driver is available for the device > or not. Also easy way to tell that someone has invested time to find out > the driver corresponding to device and he confirmed that this driver is > compatible with that device. > Otherwise, it is difficult to quickly find out the driver whether this > is available/support or not for given device. This is so specific, imaginated use case... Regular users don't write DTS. This is strictly for developers and the engineer who develops code/platforms using maxim devices has this problem? No way... You want to create many artificial device ids for the same compatible device just to make grepping easier for someone (I cannot even find out for whom...)? Nooo, that is just wrong. These are the same blocks/subdevices. They use the same driver. They should use the same compatible or the same name of driver. Best regards, Krzysztof