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
