On 06/04/2023 13:15, 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?
>
> 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.
For each compatible family you should have only one entry in each ID
table. Naming of driver data does not matter really. Just use lower chip
name.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
