On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:16:38AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > On 5/22/2019 5:01 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:16:06PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > I'm open to suggestions. Apparently there are two register common > > > register > > > schemes - the old one and the new one. PMIC designs after some random > > > point > > > in time are all the new register scheme per the documentation I see. > > > As far as I an aware, the FT426 design is the first design to be added to > > > this driver to make use of the new scheme, but I expect more to be > > > supported > > > in future, thus I'm reluctant to make these ft426 specific in the name. > > If there's a completely new register map why are these even in the same > > driver? > Its not completely new, its a derivative of the old scheme. Of the 104 > registers, approximately 5 have been modified, therefore the new scheme is > 95% compatible with the old one. Duplicating a 1883 line driver to handle a > change in 5% of the register space seems less than ideal. Particularly > considering your previous comments seem to indicate that you feel its pretty > trivial to handle the quirks associated with the changes in this driver. Ah, so it's not a completely new scheme but rather just a couple of registers that have changed. Sharing the driver is fine then. Ideally there would be some documentation from the vendor about this, a mention of IP revisions or some such. If not what the DT bindings do for names is use the first chip things were found in.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
