On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 06:21:21PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 4/23/2024 4:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 04:36:18PM -0700, Florian Fainelli kirjoitti:
This patch series depends upon the following two patches being applied:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-1-duanqiangwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422084109.3201-2-duanqiangwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
There is no reason why each driver should have to repeat the
"i2c_designware" string all over the place, because when that happens we
see the reverts like the above being necessary.
Isn't that a part of ABI between drivers, i.e. whenever ones want to
request_module() or so they need to know what they are doing, no?
Yes, the drivers should know, but as evidenced by the two patches above,
there was still room for error. If we have to abide by a certain contract,
which is platform_driver::driver::name, then we might as well have a header
defining it no?
Maybe, I simply don't like the manipulations with parts of the device instance
names / driver IDs / driver name, which all become mixed after this series.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature