[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zx9XE6_xzEYKtnel@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 11:19:15 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_crc: Add support for non ACPI
instantiated i2c_client
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 25-Oct-24 3:27 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:37:12AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
...
> >> +static const struct i2c_device_id crystal_cove_i2c_match[] = {
> >> + { "intel-crystal-cove" },
> >
> > Why this can't be "crystal_cove_i2c"?
>
> It can be any string as long as it is unique. Typically this will
> be vendor-model-name though and having i2c in there is a bit weird
> since this is used for the modalias, which gets prefixed with
> "i2c:" already.
>
> Therefor I would prefer to keep this as is. But if you have
> a strong preference I can change this for v2.
>
> Please let me know how you want to proceed with this patch.
I think that I would like to have the same name there and in the .driver below.
If you think we need align these across PMIC MFD drivers, I'm fine with that as
well.
> >> + { }
> >> +};
...
> >> .driver = {
> >> .name = "crystal_cove_i2c",
At least two options based on the existing code:
"Crystal Cove PMIC" or "intel_soc_pmic_crc". I'm also
not against other one as long as it's done for all
PMIC MFD drivers.
> >> .pm = pm_sleep_ptr(&crystal_cove_pm_ops),
> >> .acpi_match_table = crystal_cove_acpi_match,
> >> },
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists