On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:27:02PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Florian Fainelli <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is a little fragile, I would rather create more specialized > > platform_id names, like "bcm6348-spi" and "bcm6358-spi", very much like > > what the FEC driver does, such that: > Can we even associate more than one name with a driver? Else I would > need to split this driver into two, and that sounds like a lot more > work for IMHO not much gain, and a lot more opportunities to > accidentially break things ;-) Yes, of course - like Florian says look at the FEC driver for one example. Just set id_table. > I'm also trying to not touch arch stuff, to keep the changes local to > spi (easier merging). Apart from that, this is the legacy platform > device registration route where we know exactly which values to > expect, and the device tree path won't go there, so I would think this > is okay for devices where we have full control over this (i.e. within > the kernel). Making the code more obscure and fragile to avoid such a minor issue with integrating changes sounds like it's going in the wrong direction - it creates long term complexity for a short term gain.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
