2022-05-17 at 13:53, Michael Walle wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> +struct mux_lan966x {
>>
>> Why is the file named lan966, but then everything inside lan966x?
>
> So I was about to reply to the bindings but since that question
> came up here, too, I'll do it here.
>
> IMHO the name "lan966" is super confusing and if I followed it
> correctly, it was just invented because the DT guys don't want to
> have a wildcard in the compatibles. But LAN966 isn't a real product,
> just LAN9662 and LAN9668 is.
No wonder I failed when I searched the web for "lan966"...
So, as you were told in the thread you point at below, you name
stuff after one of them (and not some random thing that doesn't
exist), but then handle both in the same file(s). Like you would
have if one was introduced first and the other came later.
Cheers,
Peter
>
> I'd really prefer to have a consistent naming. I've said it once
> [1], having "lan966" (over lan966x) feels like cheating and is even
> worse, because everyone would assume there is a thing named LAN966.
> lan966x might lead the reader to think twice what the 'x' means.
>
> So I'd prefer to have lan966x in the documentation and the drivers
> and just "microchip,lan9668" or "microchip,lan9662" in the
> compatibles.
>
> -michael
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/d18291ff8d81f03a58900935d92115f2@xxxxxxxx/
