[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170224091231.GC5012@Socrates-UM>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:12:33 +0800
From: Eva Rachel Retuya <eraretuya@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>,
Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com>,
Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@...g-vd.ch>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] iio: accel: adxl345: Add SPI support
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@...afoo.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@...il.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists