On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:41:54AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.
That said you may use mine
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > +++ 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
>
>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
