Hi Guenter & Alexandre, On 13 May 2015 14:47 Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 05/13/2015 06:37 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 13/05/2015 at 06:04:47 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote : > >> 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. > >> > > > > Yes, in particular if at some point in time a new IP matching those xxx > > is completely different from the previous one. I'm not fond of renaming > > the driver either but if diasemi thinks that what they want, I'm open to > > let it happen. But clearly, I don't want to end up in a situation like > > the tlv320aic where you don't know which driver correspond to which > > chip: > > > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.c > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic31xx.h > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.c > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic32x4.h > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.c > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320aic3x.h > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.c > > sound/soc/codecs/tlv320dac33.h > > > > Go figure that the tlv320aic3104 can be supported by both tlv320aic3x.c > > and tlv320aic32x4.c but not tlv320aic31xx.c... > > > > Unfortunately that is exactly what is going to happen. Thanks for this clarification. We'll follow your advice and keep the name as da9063 Regards, Steve -- 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
