On 23/10/2019 10:27:43+0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > Hello again Alexandre, > > On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 12:48 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 17/10/2019 10:36:44+0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > Hello Alexandre, > > > > > > Thanks for quick check! I'll be off for the rest of the week but I > > > will > > > re-work this patch at next week :) I agree with you regarding most > > > of > > > the comments. > > > > > > > > + > > > > > + > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * RTC definitions shared between > > > > > + * > > > > > + * BD70528 > > > > > + * and BD71828 > > > > > + */ > > > > > + > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_SEC 0x7f > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_MINUTE 0x7f > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_24H 0x80 > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_PM 0x20 > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR 0x3f > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_DAY 0x3f > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_WEEK 0x07 > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_MONTH 0x1f > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_YEAR 0xff > > > > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_ALM_EN 0x7 > > > > > + > > > > > > > > All that renaming is distracting and useless. Please resubmit > > > > without > > > > renaming defines, structs and functions to make it easier to > > > > review. > > > > > > I would prefer renaming because it makes it clearly visible which > > > defines/structs/functions are common for both PMICs and which are > > > PMIC > > > specific. But I really understand the problem of spotting real > > > changes. > > > Would it be Ok if I did renaming in separate patch which does not > > > bring > > > in any other changes - and then the functional changes in separate > > > patch? > > > > > > > No, unless you can guarantee that all future PMICs from rohm matching > > the wildcard will use this driver. > > > I started re-working this patch and remembered my original idea > regarding the naming :) I should have commented it as I had already > forgotten it. You are correct what comes to the difficulty of using > correct wild-cards. And I agree with you what comes to function and > struct names like bd7xx28 - those are somewhat fragile as next PMIC > which we want to support with this driver may be BD12345 - yielding our > wild-card useless. > > But if we take a look of common definitions in header rohm-shared.h > which I added - those are prefixed as ROHM_BD1. My idea was introducing > this common RTC define group 1 - which would be common define group for > all devices which belong to BD1 group. Currently that would be BD71828 > and BD70528. What was missing is the comment explaining this (and lack > of comment made this useless as even I forgot it already). > > I already reverted this naming change and all BD70528 specific and > common defines/functions/enums are prefixed with the good old BD70528. > Only new definitions which I added for BD71828 are prefixed with > BD71828. But how do you see the grouping the common defines to format > ROHM_BD<group number>_FOO_BAR in the rohm-shared.h - with comment that > group BD1 consists of definitions which are common for BD70528 and > BD71828? > > My only fear when using prefix BD70528 for common defines is that > someone changes some defines to match the BD70528 data-sheet without > evaluating if this impacts to other PMICs. It may be useless paranoia > though - hence I am asking for your opinion at this phase. I can do > this grouping in own patch - or just leave it as it is now in my local > repo - with the old BD70528 being common prefix. > I don't think those masks will ever change, all the BCD RTCs are using the same. Note that ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_24H, ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_PM and ROHM_BD1_MASK_ALM_EN are bits and should use BIT() to make that clear. Those may change later but I don't see how someone looking at the BD70528 datasheet would get those wrong. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
