Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:39:30 +0200 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 02/13] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for sl28cpld |
| |
Am 2020-07-28 11:20, schrieb Lee Jones: >> What sounds bogus? That we name the implementation sl28cpld? >> How is that different to like adt7411? Its just a name made up by >> the vendor. So if there is a new version of the adt7411 the vendor >> might name it adt7412. > > Using an arbitrary string as a compatible would be bogus. > > So here 'sl28cpld' is the device name, so it's not actually > arbitrary. That's a good start. > >> We name it sl28cpld-r2. So what is the problem here? > > Do you though? So 'sl28cpld-r1' is the name of the device? The name > that is quoted from the (private) datasheet? Because looking at the > implementation and going by the conversation, it sounds as though > you-re only adding the '-r1' piece to the compatible string for > revision identification. Which if true, is not usually allowed and > warrants intervention by Rob.
Revisions would imply backwards compatibility, correct? I'm not aming for that. Yes, I appended that "-r1" (in the lack of any better suffix) because I didn't want to tie the base name to the simple MFD, just in case. And isn't that the whole purpose of the compatible string? To connect a driver to a piece of hardware?
But even here, I don't care anymore. I strip it again. So future incarnations which aren't compatible with simple mfd will need another name. So what.
-michael
| |