On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, Karel Balej wrote:
> Lee,
>
> On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 11:54 AM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The subject needs work. Please tell us what the patches is doing.
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Karel Balej wrote:
> >
> > > From: Karel Balej <balejk@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > A full an complete commit message is a must.
>
> I have not provided a detailed description here because as I have noted
> in the cover letter, this patch will be squashed into the MFD series. I
> sent it only as a bridge between the two series, sorry for the
> confusion.
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> > > unsigned int whoami;
> > > struct reg_sequence *presets;
> > > unsigned int num_presets;
> > > + struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > > + unsigned int num_devs;
> >
> > Why are you adding extra abstraction?
>
> Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
> support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
> as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
> abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
> is also chip-specific?
Even if you were to support multiple devices, this strategy is unusual
and isn't likely to be accepted.
With respect to the other variables, you are in a better position to
know if they are still required. By the sounds of it, I'd suggest it
might be better to remove them.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
