On 2017-05-22 19:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> On 2017-05-22 19:20, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-22 19:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Avoids reimplementation of DMI matching in intel_quark_i2c_setup. >>>>> >>>>> What's wrong with current approach? I suppose this will make sense >>>>> when we will have an issue / impediment. Right now it looks like >>>>> over-engineering. >>>>> >>>>> (Yes, I know what I said to you about this earlier, OTOH see above) >>>>> >>>> >>>> It allows matching on additional DMI tags without additional code - >>>> patch 2 depends on it. >>> >>> And since there is no difference to the frequency the name is enough. >>> So, I wouldn't go with this series as is. See above. >> >> Nope: Just like for the stmmac, we need to include the asset tags to >> avoid matching variations of the devices which may carry the same board >> name. While I will try to avoid that this happens, we are better safe >> than sorry here. > > Do we have an issue right now? > Yes / No
Andy, we are trying to design a robust upstream driver here, no ad-hoc BSP that will not survive the hardware anyway. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux