Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-23759-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 16:06:08 +0100
Message-Id: <CYBYXXCP3O1O.2M5YMCRW3SIMY@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: "Karel Balej" <balejk@matfyz.cz>, "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
 "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, "Conor Dooley"
 <conor+dt@kernel.org>, "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, "Mark Brown"
 <broonie@kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, =?utf-8?q?Duje_Mihanovi=C4=87?=
 <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>, <~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht>,
 <phone-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the
 PMIC RFC series
To: "Lee Jones" <lee@kernel.org>
From: "Karel Balej" <karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20231228100208.2932-1-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20231228100208.2932-2-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20240111105426.GA1678981@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240111105426.GA1678981@google.com>

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@matfyz.cz>
>
> 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.