+Rob & Krzysztof On 01/12/2023 10:10, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi Roger, > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 03:30:54PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: >> Hi Heikki, >> >> On 30/11/2023 12:54, Heikki Krogerus wrote: >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>>>> Why not just match against the structures themselves? >>>>> >>>>> if (tps->data == &tps25750_data) >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> Then you need to declare tps25750_data and friends at the top of the file? >>>> >>>> A better approach might be to have type agnostic quirk flags for the special >>>> behavior required for different types. This way, multiple devices can share >>>> the same quirk if needed. >>>> >>>> e.g. >>>> NEEDS_POWER_UP instead of TIPD_TYPE_APPLE_CD321X >>>> SKIP_VID_READ instead of TIPD_TYPE_TI_TPS25750X >>>> INIT_ON_RESUME instead of TIPD_TYPE_TI_TPS25750X >>>> >>>> Also rename cd321x_switch_power_state() to tps6598x_switch_power_state(). >>> >>> No. Functions like that isolate cd321x specific functionality into an >>> actual "function" just like they should. >>> >>> Quirk flags mean that if something breaks, it will almost always break >>> for everybody (there is no real isolation with quirk flags), and when >>> things are fixed and when features are added, we are forced to always >>> "dance" around those quirk flags - you always have to consider them. >>> >>> Platform/device type checks are just as bad IMO, but in one way they >>> are better than quirk flags. There is no question about what a >>> platform check is checking, but quirk flags can so easily become >>> incomprehensible (just what exactly does it mean when you say >>> NEEDS_POWER_UP, SKIP_VID_READ and so on (you would need to document >>> those quirks, which is waste of effort, and in reality nobody will do). >>> >>> In case of tipd/code.c, it should be converted into a library that >>> only has the common/shared functionality. CD321, TPS2579x, TPS6598x >>> and what ever there is, then will have a glue driver that handles >>> everything that specific for their controller type. >> >> Do you mean that you want to treat the 3 devices as different incompatible devices >> so each one has a separate driver which warrants for a different DT binding >> for each and also Kconfig symbol? > > I did not consider that, I was thinking that we would still continue > with just one probe driver for all of these, but now that you > mentioned this, maybe it would actually make sense to have separate > full fledged probing drivers for all of these. Do you think it would > be better like that? Would it be a problem to split the bindings? I'm no DT expert but looks like an overkill to me. -- cheers, -roger
