On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2017-05-22 19:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-22 19:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 2017-05-22 19:20, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2017-05-22 19:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 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. >> >> You didn't answer my question... >> >> I do not see a good point to solve the issue that might happen in the future. >> > > While I do - that's why your question is misleading. > > Then let's leave the decision up to the maintainer. Lee, just for your convenience I'm repeating myself here: I do not like this series at all since it tries to solve non-existing issue in over-engineering way. If you on opposite side I will be happy to help reviewing it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
