On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 2:05 AM Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Also - Cc: Dongchun Zhu <dongchun.zhu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> who is listed as the > DW9768 VCM driver author... > Quoting Zhi Mao (毛智) (2024-06-12 12:13:40) > > On Wed, 2024-06-12 at 09:07 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: ... > > Our project uses Giantec VCM hardware. > > For detailed vendor information, please visit: ( > > https://en.giantec-semi.com/yqmd/164). > > The VCM datasheet we are referencing is provided by Giantec. > > Currently, the relationship between Giantec VCM and Dongwoon VCM is > > unclear, but Dongwoon seems to be another manufacturer of VCM > > hardware. There may be plenty of manufacturers of the same/similar IPs, but it's not an excuse to have a duplication like this. > > From the perspective of software driver development and maintenance, it > > makes sense for each vendor's hardware should have its own software > > driver. > > Personally, I don't think so. If two vendors make identical parts, we > shouldn't have two identical drivers. Exactly! That's why we have compatible strings or other means of reusing the same code base as much as possible. This in particular reduces maintenance costs (of all means!) _a lot_. > I still have plans to refactor VCM drivers if I get some spare-time(tm) > as almost each driver does the same identical task. They're all just > copies of the boilerplate. That seems like something we should reduce, > not increase. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
