Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-23801-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 16:36:12 +0100
Message-Id: <CYBZKXR1F4QP.197Y9Y09Z1CLP@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>
 <CYBYXXCP3O1O.2M5YMCRW3SIMY@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20240111152549.GL1678981@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240111152549.GL1678981@google.com>

On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 4:25 PM CET, Lee Jones wrote:

[...]

> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88=
x.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?
> >=20
> > 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?
>
> Even if you were to support multiple devices, this strategy is unusual
> and isn't likely to be accepted.

May I please ask what the recommended strategy is then? `switch`ing on
the chip ID? I have taken this approach because it seemed to produce a
cleaner/more straightforward code in comparison to that. Or are you only
talking about the chip cells/subdevices in particular?

Thank you,
K. B.