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