On 07/10/2014 04:08 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
>> +static const struct of_device_id qpnp_rtc_table[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "qcom,qpnp-rtc", },
>> + {}
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rtc_qpnp_table);
>
> We have had a lot of discussions related to how to name pm8x41
> drivers; as they obviously fall under pm8xxx in most peoples eyes.
IMO the pm8xxx is misleading already.
>
> As you guys have explained, QPNP is defining the split of address
> space and how interrupts are layed out. To me this does however not
> say anything related to the actual functionality; e.g. the rtc in this
> case.
>
> Are you by this patch saying that this is the one and only rtc
> hardware that will ever be spun under the QPNP umbrella?
> I would expect the naming to be more specific; and definitely the
> compatible to be specific.
>
> This concern goes for all the qpnp drivers.
QPNP "umbrella" includes 11 PMIC chips according to downstream kernel at
[1]. I think that every driver with qpnp in the name will support the
appropriate sub-function IP on every pmic of that list.
Of course the naming convention can be changed and for rtc we could say
rtc-pm8941 in compatible string.
compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc", "qcom,pma8084-rtc", "qcom,qpnp-rtc";
I haven't strong opinion on the naming.
Otherwise, I will do evaluate how difficult will be to merge "rtc-qpnp"
and rtc-pm8xxx. Those rtc peripherals looks similar.
--
regards,
Stan
[1]
https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/la/kernel/msm-3.10/tree/drivers/platform/msm/qpnp-revid.c?h=msm-3.10#n27
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
