Re: [PATCH 2/4] ACPI / PMIC: Add byt prefix to Crystal Cove PMIC OpRegion driver

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 25-10-2019 09:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:38:25PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Our current Crystal Cove OpRegion driver is only valid for the
> > Crystal Cove PMIC variant found on Bay Trail (BYT) boards,
> > Cherry Trail (CHT) based boards use another variant.
> >
> > At least the regulator registers are different on CHT and these registers
> > are one of the things controlled by the custom PMIC OpRegion.
> >
> > Commit 4d9ed62ab142 ("mfd: intel_soc_pmic: Export separate mfd-cell
> > configs for BYT and CHT") has disabled the intel_pmic_crc.c code for CHT
> > devices by removing the "crystal_cove_pmic" MFD cell on CHT devices.
> >
> > This commit renames the intel_pmic_crc.c driver and the cell to be
> > prefixed with "byt" to indicate that this code is for BYT devices only.
> >
> > This is a preparation patch for adding a separate PMIC OpRegion
> > driver for the CHT variant of the Crystal Cove PMIC (sometimes called
> > Crystal Cove Plus in Android kernel sources).
>
> >   .../acpi/pmic/{intel_pmic_crc.c => intel_pmic_bytcrc.c}    | 4 ++--
> >   drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c                           | 2 +-
>
> I would go with previously established pattern, i.e. intel_pmic_bytcc.c.

Well that would be consistent with the chtwc for the Whiskey Cove, but
Crystal Cove related files are shortened to crc in many places already:

Filenames before this patch:
drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_crc.c
drivers/pwm/pwm-crc.c
drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c

And to me "cc" stands for the Type-C cc lines, or for Cc: from email,
so IMHO it is best to stick with crc here.

> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_crc.c
> > @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static struct mfd_cell crystal_cove_byt_dev[] = {
> >   		.resources = gpio_resources,
> >   	},
> >   	{
> > -		.name = "crystal_cove_pmic",
> > +		.name = "byt_crystal_cove_pmic",
> >   	},
> >   	{
> >   		.name = "crystal_cove_pwm",
>
> I'm wondering shouldn't we rename the PWM and GPIO for the sake of consistency?
> Yes, if a driver is used on both CHT and BYT, let it provide two names.

I believe it is fine to keep the blocks which are identical between
the 2 versions as just "crystal_cove_foo", but renaming them is fine with me
too, but that follows outside the scope of this series and should be
done in a follow-up series IMHO.

Regards,

Hans