On 4/6/23 14:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 06/04/2023 12:08, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>> + }, {
>>>> + .name = "rk8602",
>>>> + .driver_data = RK8602_VENDOR_ROCKCHIP
>>>> + }, {
>>>> + .name = "rk8603",
>>>> + .driver_data = RK8602_VENDOR_ROCKCHIP
>>>
>>> Why do you need this entry match data if it is the same as rk8602?
>>
>> This is consistent with the handling of syr827 and syr828:
>>
>> .name = "syr827",
>> .driver_data = FAN53555_VENDOR_SILERGY
>> }, {
>> .name = "syr828",
>> .driver_data = FAN53555_VENDOR_SILERGY
>
> Yeah, I understand, but it's not necessarily the pattern we want to
> continue. Unless these devices are not really compatible?
They are compatible, so should I simply drop the rk8601 and rk8603 entries?
Probably also renaming rk8600 and rk8602, though I'm not sure what a
proper naming scheme would be to combine the 2 variants for each.
Thanks,
Cristian
