[PATCH V2 4/4] mfd: mediatek: add MT6323 support to MT6397 driver

[Henry Chen]

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 19:59 +0100, John Crispin wrote:
> 
> On 25/01/2016 19:44, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> > On Monday 25 Jan 2016 16:36:40 John Crispin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 25/01/2016 13:41, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> 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:
> >>>> Signed-off-by: John Crispin <blogic at openwrt.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> @@ -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