On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use. >> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple. > > Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it > being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that > there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is > intended to be the same). Though in the case of a MFD that information > can be obtained from the MFD for the device. We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible. Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared about using the workaround on older DTBs. Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the "same device". Of course maybe there is such need? Alim? Best regards, Krzysztof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |