Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] power: bq27x00_battery: Renaming for consistency | From | "Andrew F. Davis" <> | Date | Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:53:24 -0500 |
| |
On 09/15/2015 03:32 AM, Laurentiu Palcu wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:26:08PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote: >> Rename functions that are used by multiple devices. New devices >> have been added and the function names and driver name are no longer >> general enough for the functionality they provide. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 4 +- >> arch/arm/configs/omap2plus_defconfig | 2 +- >> arch/unicore32/Kconfig | 2 +- >> drivers/power/Kconfig | 22 +- >> drivers/power/Makefile | 2 +- >> .../power/{bq27x00_battery.c => bq27xxx_battery.c} | 333 +++++++++++---------- > > 1000 chips! That's how many potential chips is this driver supposed to > support, after the rename, with little or no modifications.Is it even > possible to guarantee that all future chips, starting with 'bq27' in > their naming scheme, are register compatible? >
After this series we support three times as many chips, and almost none of them follow the 27x00 naming (only the bq27000 and bq27200 ever did).
Also almost *none* of the new chips added are register compatible, that's why this series moves register mapping to a table, but they all perform the same task (fuel gauging) in almost the same way so it works well.
> Call me conservative, but when I see driver names/renames containing > wildcards, I get chills down my spine. I can probably get over single > digit wildcards but 3 digit wildcards is a little too much. :) >
Perhaps just bq27x :)
> I can't help but wonder what will one have to do if one single newly > released bq27xxx chip is completely different... :/ >
If someday they make a part that is so different it doesn't fit in this driver then it can be the oddball with its own named driver file.
Regards, Andrew
> laurentiu > >
| |