On 26/01/2016 09:34, Lee Jones wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, John Crispin wrote:

quoted

On 26/01/2016 04:07, Henry Chen wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 19:59 +0100, John Crispin wrote:

quoted

On 25/01/2016 19:44, Matthias Brugger wrote:

quoted

On Monday 25 Jan 2016 16:36:40 John Crispin wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 25/01/2016 13:41, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

Please honour the subject format of the subsystem you are contributing
to.

`git log --oneline -- $subsystem` gives you this.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, John Crispin wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: John Crispin <redacted>
---

[...]

quoted

quoted

@@ -261,6 +271,15 @@ static int mt6397_probe(struct platform_device

*pdev)

 	}
 	
 	switch (id & 0xff) {

+	case MT6323_CID_CODE:
+		mt6397->int_con[0] = MT6323_INT_CON0;

This is confusing.  You're still using memory allocated for a mt6397
device.

the variable is currently defined as struct mt6397_chip *mt6397;
shall i only change the name or also create a patch to rename the struct ?

I think we should rename the struct and the file as well.

Cheers,
Matthias

Hi,

that would have been my next question. renaming the struct would imply
renaming the driver and the whole namespace contained within. We would
then also need to change the Kconfig and Makefile. I am happy to do this
but want to be sure that is is actually wanted.

	John

Hi,

Since mt6323 was similar with mt6397, I think we can reuse the
mt6397_chip without duplicate code.

Maybe we can rename the local variable name to avoid confusing.

struct mt6397_chip *mt_pmic;
...
...
switch (id & 0xff) {
	case MT6323_CID_CODE:
		mt_pmic->int_con[0] = MT6323_INT_CON0;
		mt_pmic->int_con[1] = MT6323_INT_CON1;
...
...

Henry

Hi,

IMHO we should either rename the namespace or not. renaming some
variables seems weird as that will just move the confusion/inconsistency
to another place in the code. I am however rather indifferent on this
matter.

It's common to name a driver after the device which was enabled first,
so no need to rename the files or CONFIGs; however, it does seem
prudent to generify the struct (both parts).

Hi Lee,

fine, how would you like me to name the struct. would
"struct mtk_pmic" be ok ?

	John