RE: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC)

[Steve Twiss]

On 06 October 2016 19:49, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 04/10] watchdog: da9061: watchdog driver (RFC)
> 
> Hi Steve,

[...]

> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 04:28:14PM +0000, Steve Twiss wrote:
> > I am using the compatible string to pick a different configuration .data block:
> >
> > { .compatible = "dlg,da9062-watchdog", .data = &da9062_watchdog_info },
> > { .compatible = "dlg,da9061-watchdog", .data = &da9061_watchdog_info },
> >
> > when the only real difference between the DA9061 and DA9062 watchdog driver
> > is the name. Functionally they are identical in this case.
[...]
> > This exact same thing would happen with da9063-onkey and da9062-thermal also.
> > For the ONKEY it is marginally confused by needing to support 63, but for 62 and 61
> > it is the same thing. Only the name is different.
> >
[...]
> > But, it is just my opinion to keep the "name" different.
> > This will not be my decision if accepted into the Linux kernel, but I would like to
> > at least be consistent for DA9061 and DA9062 so ... is this an issue?
> 
> 
> Yes, for me it is. The driver is still the same, and I don't see the point
> of increasing code size and making the driver less readable just to be able
> to report a slightly different driver identification string. And each time
> a similar HW is added we would go through the same effort, again for no
> good reason.
> 

My reason for doing this was to report the hardware identification, not the
driver name. But, there would certainly be a lot less to do if I was to make
DA9061 core use the DA9062 watchdog.
 
> FWIW the driver doesn't really need to be updated in the first place.
> A compatible statement listing both da9061 and da9062 would do it.

I will make the changes you requested: deprecate the existing compatibility
for da9062-watchdog and make a new compatibility string which combines both
da9061 and da9062.

Regards,
Stephen