On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:38:25PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Our current Crystal Cove OpRegion driver is only valid for the
> Crystal Cove PMIC variant found on Bay Trail (BYT) boards,
> Cherry Trail (CHT) based boards use another variant.
>
> At least the regulator registers are different on CHT and these registers
> are one of the things controlled by the custom PMIC OpRegion.
>
> Commit 4d9ed62ab142 ("mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Export separate mfd-cell
> configs for BYT and CHT") has disabled the intel_pmic_crc.c code for CHT
> devices by removing the "crystal_cove_pmic" MFD cell on CHT devices.
>
> This commit renames the intel_pmic_crc.c driver and the cell to be
> prefixed with "byt" to indicate that this code is for BYT devices only.
>
> This is a preparation patch for adding a separate PMIC OpRegion
> driver for the CHT variant of the Crystal Cove PMIC (sometimes called
> Crystal Cove Plus in Android kernel sources).
> .../acpi/pmic/{intel_pmic_crc.c => intel_pmic_bytcrc.c} | 4 ++--
> drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c | 2 +-
I would go with previously established pattern, i.e. intel_pmic_bytcc.c.
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static struct mfd_cell crystal_cove_byt_dev[] = {
> .resources = gpio_resources,
> },
> {
> - .name = "crystal_cove_pmic",
> + .name = "byt_crystal_cove_pmic",
> },
> {
> .name = "crystal_cove_pwm",
I'm wondering shouldn't we rename the PWM and GPIO for the sake of consistency?
Yes, if a driver is used on both CHT and BYT, let it provide two names.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
