On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:58:38PM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote: > Hello, > due to the fact (all?) the Microchip (former SMSC) USB hubs share the > same I2C configuration interface, I'm currently working on harmonizing > those USB Hub drivers. Currently this affects the usb251xb, usb3503 and > usb4604 drivers. To avoid preventable efforts (and patch versions) I > have some question on the preferred implementation: > > 1. Currently usb251xb uses i2c_smbus_*, usb3503 uses regmap_* and > usb4604 uses i2c_master_* functions for the hub configuration. What > would be the preferred solution? regmap? It is already widely used for I2C drivers. I think most (or even all?) new I2C drivers use regmap. It hides the real bus between common regmap API. > 2. What would be a good prefix for common headers/functions/macros/etc.? > I thought of "mcusbhub"... Would that be OK? Or are there any > conventions/better proposals on that? If you are going to develop one driver for entire family, then you could even choose just one name. Let's say the most generic. I don't quite understand the meaning behind "harmonizing drivers". > 3. Currently only usb3503 supports "platform data". Is this still needed > or may it be removed? I think it is still used, e.g. by: arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-spring.dts Best regards, Krzysztof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
