On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 06:21:21PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 4/23/2024 4:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:36:18PM -0700, Florian Fainelli kirjoitti: > > > This patch series depends upon the following two patches being applied: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-1-duanqiangwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-2-duanqiangwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > There is no reason why each driver should have to repeat the > > > "i2c_designware" string all over the place, because when that happens we > > > see the reverts like the above being necessary. > > > > Isn't that a part of ABI between drivers, i.e. whenever ones want to > > request_module() or so they need to know what they are doing, no? > > Yes, the drivers should know, but as evidenced by the two patches above, > there was still room for error. If we have to abide by a certain contract, > which is platform_driver::driver::name, then we might as well have a header > defining it no? Maybe, I simply don't like the manipulations with parts of the device instance names / driver IDs / driver name, which all become mixed after this series. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
