Hello,
On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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?
Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like
just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc", S2MPS14X }", since I don't have
access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are
exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes.
Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic
is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs.
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
