On 05/13/2015 05:58 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
Hi,
On 13/05/2015 at 12:31:36 +0000, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote :
Something similar is being discussed for the OnKey component of the DA9062.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/24/304
It is only the OnKey and RTC components that are similar to the DA9063 chip
and I was hoping to keep the 62 RTC separate in this case ... however it should
definitely be possible to re-use the DA9063 RTC driver if this is your requirement.
If this will block my submission of the DA9062 then I will drop the RTC from my
next patch set and try to re-work the existing 63 RTC driver accordingly.
I think this sort of thing has been done before:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
... at first glance -- it seems to support that sort of thing.
Isn't that exactly the point of using the MFD infrastructure? It allows
to reuse existing drivers even when the IP is part of a different chip.
The RTC inside the da9062 and the da9063 are obviously the same so there
is no point in duplicating the driver.
I'm guessing using da9063-rtc instead of da9062-rtc is just working
fine.
I guess it would be possible to rename the da9063-rtc to something more sensible like
da9xxx-rtc.c if this goes ahead?
Sure, that can be done but this means that the module name will change.
if you feel that your current users can cope with that, I'm fine with it.
Don't know how this is handled for rtc drivers, but in other subsystems
we just live with the original name. I don't see a need to rename a driver
just because it starts supporting more hardware, and xxx is weird anyway
since it suggests everything from 000 to 999, which is much worse than
just sticking with 9063.
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
