Re: [PATCH V2 5/6] rtc: max77xxx: add RTC driver for Maxim MAX77xxx series RTC IP
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Date: Tue Jan 12 2016 - 23:28:35 EST
On 13.01.2016 13:07, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 January 2016 05:36 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12.01.2016 18:17, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> Maxim Semiconductor's PMIC MAX77620, MAX77686, MAX20024 have
>>> same RTC IP on these PMICs.
>>> Add generic MAX77xxxx series RTC driver which can be used as
>>> RTC driver for these PMIC and avoids duplication of RTC driver
>>> for each PMICs. Their MFD driver can be different here.
>>> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Changes from V1:
>>> - Rename the file to rtc-max77xxx.c and make the generic implementation.
>>> - Direct regmap apis are used for the register access.
>>> - Decouped from max77620 driver.
>>> - Taken care of cleanup comments form V1 version.
>>> drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 +
>>> drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77xxx.c | 500
>>> 3 files changed, 511 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-max77xxx.c
>>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
>>> index 376322f..4972dd5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
>>> @@ -315,6 +315,16 @@ config RTC_DRV_MAX8997
>>> This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
>>> will be called rtc-max8997.
>>> +config RTC_DRV_MAX77XXX
>>> + tristate "Maxim MAX77XXX series generic RTC driver"
>>> + help
>>> + If you say yes here you will get support for the generic RTC
>>> + for Maxim Semiconductor MAX77XXX series of PMIC like MAX77620.
>>> + This also supports the RTC driver for Maxim PMIC MaX20024 which
>>> + is almost same as MAX77620.
>>> + This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
>>> + will be called rtc-max77xxx.
>> That was not the consensus... You still added a new driver - but now
>> with different name.
>> That is useless duplication
>> Please work with existing code. Use existing maxim RTC drivers: either
>> max77686 or max77802.
>> There is no need for new one.
> If we modify the existing one then that work will be outside of this
> series to make it independent.
And that is the problem? The series evolve. The ultimate goal is to
support max77686, max77802, max77620 and max20024.
> However, the file name does not suggest common in older file.
This is not a sensible argument. The name does not matter. But if really
needed we can rename it...
> Also this
> will require mfd and rtc driver changes to decouple it.
Yes, decouple everything! I like it! :) Make it robust, generic,
readable, fix bugs etc. :)
> Here is my approach:
> - Let's have common driver in implementation and file name. This will be
> independent of the mfd driver on all sense.
> - Once it is merged, move the max77686 and max77802 to use this driver,
> this will need the modification on the mfd driver, related defconfig
> file and if specific stuff needed in the rtc then addition of that.
Nope, because *the second part won't happen*. Never. After merging you
will be happy and another duplicated stuff ends in the kernel.
Fix things before merging. Not after.
> Per your approach:
> - Modify rtc max77686 and mfd driver max77686 to decouple and proper
> - Add support of max77620 on the max77686 driver if any specific is
That is the way we usually extend the drivers for new devices.
> That is also fine to me but still I am not comfortable with the config
> name and driver file name as this does not suggest the common.
The name does not matter. Really. We have a lot of drivers with a
specific device-like name and supporting different devices. To point
that your argument is invalid - your initial name of driver
"rtc-max77620.c" supported totally different "names": the max77620 and
max20024. It also wasn't suggesting something "common"...
With my approach we are not developing common think neither. We just
want to extend/re-use existing max77686 (or max77802) driver for new
devices. Just like everywhere else.