Re: [RFC PATCH 09/13] mfd: rtc: support RTC on ROHM BD71828 with BD70528 driver

[Alexandre Belloni]

On 17/10/2019 10:36:44+0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> Hello Alexandre,
> 
> Thanks for quick check! I'll be off for the rest of the week but I will
> re-work this patch at next week :) I agree with you regarding most of
> the comments.
> 
> > > +
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * RTC definitions shared between
> > > + *
> > > + * BD70528
> > > + * and BD71828
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_SEC		0x7f
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_MINUTE	0x7f
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_24H	0x80
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR_PM	0x20
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_HOUR		0x3f
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_DAY		0x3f
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_WEEK		0x07
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_MONTH		0x1f
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_RTC_YEAR		0xff
> > > +#define ROHM_BD1_MASK_ALM_EN		0x7
> > > +
> > 
> > All that renaming is distracting and useless. Please resubmit without
> > renaming defines, structs and functions to make it easier to review.
> 
> I would prefer renaming because it makes it clearly visible which
> defines/structs/functions are common for both PMICs and which are PMIC
> specific. But I really understand the problem of spotting real changes.
> Would it be Ok if I did renaming in separate patch which does not bring
> in any other changes - and then the functional changes in separate
> patch?
> 

No, unless you can guarantee that all future PMICs from rohm matching
the wildcard will use this driver.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com