Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series

[Karel Balej]

Lee,

On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 11:54 AM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
> The subject needs work.  Please tell us what the patches is doing.
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Karel Balej wrote:
>
> > From: Karel Balej <balejk@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> A full an complete commit message is a must.

I have not provided a detailed description here because as I have noted
in the cover letter, this patch will be squashed into the MFD series. I
sent it only as a bridge between the two series, sorry for the
confusion.

> > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> >  	unsigned int whoami;
> >  	struct reg_sequence *presets;
> >  	unsigned int num_presets;
> > +	struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > +	unsigned int num_devs;
>
> Why are you adding extra abstraction?

Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
is also chip-specific?

Thank you, best regards,
K. B.