On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:36:36 +0200, Amaury Decrême wrote: > > What is the rationale for not adding support for the new chip to > > i2c-sis630 then? That would probably be a lot easier to review. > > > > I was afraid that adding SIS964 support to i2c-sis630 would lead > to confusion. There's nothing confusing, drivers supporting several devices are legion. If the devices are really almost compatible, reusing an existing driver is the way to go. > I can try to submit a patch for i2c-sis630. In this case, do you think > we should keep the 630 name or change it to something else to > avoid misunderstanding ? Keep the name. It is very common to name drivers by the name of the first supported device, and changing a driver name is always a source of trouble. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
