On Friday 18 July 2014 15:41:27 Naveen Krishna Ch wrote:
> >
> > {
> > .name = "s3c24xx-adc",
> > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV1,
> > }, {
> > .name = "s3c2443-adc",
> > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV11,
> > }, {
> > .name = "s3c2416-adc",
> > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV12,
> > }, {
> > .name = "s3c64xx-adc",
> > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV2,
> > }, {
> > .name = "samsung-adc-v3",
> > .driver_data = TYPE_ADCV3,
> > }
> >
> > Where TYPE_ADCV3 seems to be the same as the new ADC_V1 used in this
> > driver. Do you have an explanation for that?
>
> As per suggestion from Doug Anderson,
> I've implemented IIO based ADC driver to work with Exynos5250.
> keeping the plat-samsung/adc.c unchanged.
>
> Assuming Exynos5250 is the one using the driver for the first time.
> i've named it v1 and so on.
>
> Now, This seems to cause a lot of confusion.
Ah, so the version numbers don't come from Samsung hardware
documents but are just counting the versions we have drivers
for?
In this case, I guess using the first SoC that had a particular
version would have been better, and we should probably do that
when we add support for the older hardware in this driver.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
