Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] iio: adc: ad4851: add ad485x driver

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:15:15PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:14:27 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 12:40:40PM +0300, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:

...

> > > +config AD4851
> > > +	tristate "Analog Device AD4851 DAS Driver"
> > > +	depends on SPI
> > > +	select REGMAP_SPI
> > > +	select IIO_BACKEND
> > > +	help
> > > +	  Say yes here to build support for Analog Devices AD4851, AD4852,
> > > +	  AD4853, AD4854, AD4855, AD4856, AD4857, AD4858, AD4858I high speed
> > > +	  data acquisition system (DAS).  
> > 
> > I think I already commented on this... Anyway, it's much better to support when
> > this list is broke down on per device per line. In such a case it's less churn
> > if we need to remove or add an entry in the future.
> > 
> > > +	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module will be
> > > +	  called ad4851.  
> > 
> > Also, with all these devices to be supported why not ad485x as the name of
> > the driver? Is it a preference by the IIO subsystem?
> 
> Don't.  We've been bitten by too many cases of manufacturers noticing
> a hole in their part numbers and 'slotting' something unrelated in.
> So it just causes confusion.  Hence strong preference for any new code
> is pick a name from the list.  The wild card also implies restrictions
> that tend to break overtime when other part numbers outside the range
> are used.  Not using a wildcard keeps it consistently wrong so people
> get used to it :)

I see your point!

But shouldn't we have a formal criteria for choosing that one from the list?
I would go with "most featured device" as it may be aligned with all enabled
features that otherwise would be questionable / confusing for the chips that
do not support them or support in a limited manner.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko