[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQxW3-M-B6OlusEg@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 10:05:51 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>
Cc: kees@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
arnd@...db.de, hansg@...nel.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mod_devicetable: Bump auxiliary_device_id name size
On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 09:40:46AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 10:58:38AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > We have an upcoming driver named "intel_ehl_pse_io". This creates an
> > > auxiliary child device for it's GPIO sub-functionality, which matches
> > > against "intel_ehl_pse_io.gpio-elkhartlake" and overshoots the current
> >
> > Looking at the name there is another question: Why do we need 'elkhartlake in
> > the GPIO driver's name now? It's a dup to 'ehl' in the first part.
>
> Just kept it for historic consistency and I'm a bit terrible at naming.
I am afraid this alone wouldn't be enough to justify the bump.
> Perhaps "gpio-aux"? But that's too generic from subsystem POV.
>From the above the simple 'gpio' would suffice (as long as this driver won't be
used by name directly, also makes sense to check the sysfs file / folder list
to see where it may appear and may or may not clash with the similar driver
from other AUX bucket).
> Open to suggestions.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists