Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年8月28日 週五 上午12:41寫道： > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 07:18:56PM +0800, cy_huang wrote: > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > 1. Rename file form tcpci_mt6360.c to tcpci_mt636x.c > > 2. Rename internal function from mt6360 to mt636x, except the register > > definition. > > 3. Change Kconfig/Makefile from MT6360 to MT636X. > > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/Kconfig | 6 +- > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/Makefile | 2 +- > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c | 212 ---------------------------------- > > drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt636x.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 216 insertions(+), 216 deletions(-) > > delete mode 100644 drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt6360.c > > create mode 100644 drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci_mt636x.c > > Maybe Heikki is ok with this change, but I am not, for the reasons > mentioned before. So I won't approve this patch. Note that, either > case, it should be merged with the first patch. Yes, I agree with you opinion. use 636x, the range is too large from 0 to 9, it may not all be compatible. Even though it's also possible that the part number don't have the same function. So I'm going to remove the rename patch. Do I need to add a patch named "revert"? Or just remove it. I'm not sure which way is better. It seems you all want the code change to be squashed into the first code. And the second one is the DT binding. Right? > > Guenter
