- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] I2C: SIS964: Bus driver
- From: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:07:58 +0200
- Cc: ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx, w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, joe@xxxxxxxxxxx, ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx, jayachandranc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <CAPXEm73QX7haU5p7HU+=+qo5wnivt6j+WH5bQGZ0ZK0Ek2Cuyw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <1344008145-14579-1-git-send-email-amaury.decreme@gmail.com> <20120803180712.1e768042@endymion.delvare> <CAPXEm73QX7haU5p7HU+=+qo5wnivt6j+WH5bQGZ0ZK0Ek2Cuyw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:36:36 +0200, Amaury Decrême wrote:
> > What is the rationale for not adding support for the new chip to
> > i2c-sis630 then? That would probably be a lot easier to review.
> >
>
> I was afraid that adding SIS964 support to i2c-sis630 would lead
> to confusion.
There's nothing confusing, drivers supporting several devices are
legion. If the devices are really almost compatible, reusing an
existing driver is the way to go.
> I can try to submit a patch for i2c-sis630. In this case, do you think
> we should keep the 630 name or change it to something else to
> avoid misunderstanding ?
Keep the name. It is very common to name drivers by the name of the
first supported device, and changing a driver name is always a source
of trouble.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[LM Sensors]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Media]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Online Dating]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]