Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] mfd: motorola-cpcap: diverge configuration per-board

[Svyatoslav Ryhel]

9 лютого 2026 р. 10:18:57 GMT+02:00, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> пише:
>On Sun, Feb 08, 2026 at 05:19:49PM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>> 8 лютого 2026 р. 14:54:53 GMT+02:00, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> пише:
>> >On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 07:28:44PM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>
>...
>
>> >> -static const struct of_device_id cpcap_of_match[] = {
>> >> -	{ .compatible = "motorola,cpcap", },
>> >> -	{ .compatible = "st,6556002", },
>> >> -	{},
>> >> -};
>> >> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, cpcap_of_match);
>> >> -
>> >>  static const struct spi_device_id cpcap_spi_ids[] = {
>> >>  	{ .name = "cpcap", },
>> >>  	{ .name = "6556002", },
>> >> +	{ .name = "mapphone-cpcap", },
>> >>  	{},
>> >>  };
>> >
>> >This  also needs to be converted to use driver data.
>> 
>> I can do that, but is it needed?
>
>For the consistency's sake.
>Also brief look at MFD SPI drivers I see that most of them use driver data.
>All that is redundancy? Maybe clean them up as well to show the point?
>
>> This id table, if I understand correctly, is here solely to silence warnings
>> about missing spi id table. Driver itself does not use it in any way and will
>> never use since all available devices that use this driver rely solely on the
>> device tree, all possible future devices will be relying on device tree too
>> due to obvious reasons.
>
>Then maybe SPI should be fixed to avoid this table to be present? (But don't
>waste your time, it will be a rabbit hole.)
>
>> >>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, cpcap_spi_ids);
>
>...
>
>> And please, may you contain all your reviewing in one iteration. Then both of
>> us will spend less time working on the patch. Thank you!
>
>It's an impossible request, you should understand that. If you want, use AI
>or your robot colleagues for that, I'm just a human being, I can't see
>everything at once.
>

Ability to see only nits and don't see the possible issues seems to be a talent.

>