On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:37 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 02:18:03PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:44 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > It has been reported that some laptops, equipped with NXP NFC300, have > > > different ID then mentioned in the driver. > > > > > > While at it, I found that the driver has a lot of duplication and redundant > > > platform data. The rest of the series (11 out of 12 patches) is dedicated to > > > clean the driver up. > > > > > > Sedat, would be nice if you can compile kernel with this patch series applied > > > and test on your laptop. > > > > > > In v2: > > > - added new ID patch > > > - added new clean up patch > > > - Cc'ed to linux-wireless@ as well, since linux-nfc@ bounces my mails > > > - Cc'ed to the reported of the problem with T470 laptop > > > > > > Andy Shevchenko (12): > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Add NXP1001 to the ACPI ID table > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Get rid of platform data > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Convert to use GPIO descriptor > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Add GPIO ACPI mapping table > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Get rid of code duplication in ->probe() > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Get rid of useless label > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Constify acpi_device_id > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Drop of_match_ptr() use > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Drop comma in terminator lines > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Remove unused macro pr_fmt() > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Remove 'default n' for tests > > > NFC: nxp-nci: Convert to SPDX license tags > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 1 - > > > drivers/nfc/nxp-nci/Kconfig | 1 - > > > drivers/nfc/nxp-nci/core.c | 15 +-- > > > drivers/nfc/nxp-nci/firmware.c | 13 +-- > > > drivers/nfc/nxp-nci/i2c.c | 147 ++++++-------------------- > > > drivers/nfc/nxp-nci/nxp-nci.h | 1 - > > > include/linux/platform_data/nxp-nci.h | 27 ----- > > > 7 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 168 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100644 include/linux/platform_data/nxp-nci.h > > > > Can we have NPC300 listed in the Kconfg help text? > > Sure, it's good thing to do! > > Either as a separate patch or I may incorporate in the next iteration. > Samuel, what do you prefer? > Am I correct that "NPC100" is "PN547" and "NPC300" is "PN548"? - Sedat -
