On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, Min Li wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Lee
> > >
> > > The PHC driver already existed in the current tree as
> > > drivers/ptp/ptp_clockmatrix.c and ptp_idt82p33.c
> > >
> > > Right now, they act as i2c driver. I plan to change them as a normal
> > > platform device driver after this MFD change kicked in
> > >
> > > That is why I would prefer the name "phc" instead of "clock" since the
> > > driver is not a normal clk driver under drivers/clk but a ptp clock
> > > driver. And down the road, we will have our real clock driver and I wanna
> > reserve the name "clock" for the real clock driver.
> >
> > I see. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the PTP subsystem.
> >
> > In which case, the name needs to match the one in the driver:
> >
> > static struct i2c_driver idtcm_driver = {
> > .driver = {
> > .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(idtcm_dt_id),
> > .name = "idtcm",
> > },
> > .probe = idtcm_probe,
> > .remove = idtcm_remove,
> > .id_table = idtcm_i2c_id,
> > };
> >
> > So, "idtcm" in this case.
> >
> > How else will it match?
> >
>
> Hi Lee
>
> I actually like to comply with the mfd sub device naming convention by naming it 8a3400x-phc
> About the names in ptp clock driver, I will have to change them anyways down the road to
> make them work with the mfd driver
>
> Another match doesn't exist in the current tree yet. It would be a normal platform device driver that I
> will submit to drivers/misc a little later after this mfd change is merged.
Okay, leave it as it is then.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
