On 4/6/23 14:15, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> 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?
I dropped the entries in [v2] and updated the binding in PATCH 1/8.
Note I didn't add the "Acked-by" for the latter, since the changes are
significant and require a new review.
Thanks,
Cristian
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230406171806.948290-1-cristian.ciocaltea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
