Hi Andy, others, On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 09:51:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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_. Indeed. I'll mark these thus "rejected" in Patchwork. If there's something that needs to be handled differently for the other VCM, that can be taken into account in the driver. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
