linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: max77686: Add support for MAX77620 clocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <57627B4C.7060609@samsung.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:11:24 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>, javier@....samsung.com,
	mturquette@...libre.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: max77686: Add support for MAX77620 clocks

On 06/16/2016 11:52 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof/Javier,
> Thanks for review of the series.
> 
> I will post the V2 after taking care of all comment.
> 
> One query about the comment.
> 
> Thanks,
> Laxman
> 
> On Thursday 16 June 2016 03:24 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 06/15/2016 04:13 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>   enum chip_name {
>>>       CHIP_MAX77686,
>>>       CHIP_MAX77802,
>>> +    CHIP_MAX77620,
>> Now it is more obvious why it is here. However I don't like the
>> duplication of device IDs, under different names and different values:
>> 1. include/linux/mfd/max77686-private.h
>> 2. include/linux/mfd/max77620.h
>> 3. here
>>
>> I was thinking about way of combining it... but these headers are
>> different. Unless there will be one header for all three devices.
>>
>> Anyway, please add the max77686 prefix to the enum.
> 
> so will it be:
> 
> enum max77686_chip_name {
>     CHIP_MAX77686,
>     CHIP_MAX77802,
>     CHIP_MAX77620,
> };
> 
> 
> Will it be fine here?

Yes, looks fine to me.

Best regards,
Krzysztof