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: >>> 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. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
