On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 1:00 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 21/01/2021 00:18, Daniel Scally wrote: > > On 20/01/2021 12:57, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > I'm not sure that one's better than the other, to be honest. Either the > > multi-function device functionality lives in the conventional place, or > > else _all_ of the int3472 handling code lives together in one module. > Can we come to a consensus on this? I would rather be in agreement than > leave it hanging...I do see the argument that it's better not to rebirth > the MFD driver away from that subsystem, but at the moment I lean > towards the view that having all the code handling this particular _HID > in one place is probably preferable, if only to make it easier for > anyone coming in the future to understand what's happening. That said; > I'm not particularly precious about it, I'd just like to agree an > approach so I can move forward with the next version So, my priorities of rejection (first is higher) - open-coding MFD subsystem (that said, if you shuffle the code, at least leave it as an MFD driver) - moving out from MFD (although I understand intentions) Summarize, go ahead with your view (leaving it as an MFD driver) and look forward to what maintainer(s) will say. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
