Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-15350-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 09:49:08 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com>
CC: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Uwe
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	<linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: adc: rtq6056: Add support for the whole
 RTQ6056 family
Message-ID: <20240103094908.00006baf@Huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240103010452.GA6655@linuxcarl2.richtek.com>
References: <cover.1703762557.git.cy_huang@richtek.com>
	<74db15583a9a68701dbff5a1a967c0d987d6dfb6.1703762557.git.cy_huang@richtek.com>
	<20231230120347.0816bd09@jic23-huawei>
	<20240102083042.GA13611@linuxcarl2.richtek.com>
	<20240102193642.0d6d2007@jic23-huawei>
	<20240103010452.GA6655@linuxcarl2.richtek.com>
Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd.
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 09:04:52 +0800
ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:36:42PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:30:42 +0800
> > ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@richtek.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi, Johathan:
> > > 
> > > Most comments are good and will be fixed in next revision.
> > > 
> > > Still one comment I cannot make sure.
> > > 
> > > Please see the comment that's below yours.
> > > 	  
> > Hi ChiYuan,
> > 
> > It's good practice to crop away all the parts where the discussion is finished.
> > Makes it easier for people to find the bit you want discussion to continue on!
> > 
> > I've done so in this reply.
> > 
> > ...  
> > > > > +
> > > > >  enum {
> > > > >  	RTQ6056_CH_VSHUNT = 0,
> > > > >  	RTQ6056_CH_VBUS,
> > > > > @@ -50,16 +60,29 @@ enum {
> > > > >  enum {
> > > > >  	F_OPMODE = 0,
> > > > >  	F_VSHUNTCT,
> > > > > +	F_SADC = F_VSHUNTCT,    
> > > > 
> > > > If the devices have different register fields, better to have different enums
> > > > for them as well as that should result in less confusing code.
> > > >     
> > > Actually, this is all the same register, just the control naming difference.
> > > If not to define the new eum, I can remain to use the same field to handle rtq6059 part.  
> > 
> > If the bits in the register control the same thing across both parts then
> > add a comment alongside the enum to make that clear. 
> > 
> > Given the naming that seems very unlikely.  PGA and AVG would eman
> > very different things to me for starters (oversampling vs a programmble
> > gain amplifier on the front end)
> >   
> I'm also thinking how to write this difference like as comments or a seperate enum.
> But if to define a new enum, many function about the regfield controls must be seperated
> for 6056 and 6059.
> > > >     
> > > > >  	F_VBUSCT,
> > > > > +	F_BADC = F_VBUSCT,
> > > > >  	F_AVG,
> > > > > +	F_PGA = F_AVG,
> > > > >  	F_RESET,
> > > > >  	F_MAX_FIELDS
> > > > >  };  
> 
> What if to keep the original coding, just to rename the different part like as below
> F_SADC -> F_RTQ6059_SDAC
> F_BADC -> F_RTQ6059_BADC
> F_PGA -> F_RTQ6059_PGA

That works well. It makes it clear they are different across the parts.
So agreed this is the best option.
> 
> At least, the nameing already shows the difference between 6056 and 6059.
> Only these three parts are different, others are the same like as F_OPMODE, F_RESET.
> 
>