From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] DT: i2c: Deprecate adi,adxl34x compatible string Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:43:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20150115174333.GC6342@katana> References: <1421333655-31029-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <1421333655-31029-2-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <20150115170209.GA6342@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="E/DnYTRukya0zdZ1" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Laurent Pinchart , "linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux I2C , Linux-sh list List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --E/DnYTRukya0zdZ1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt > >> @@ -18,8 +18,7 @@ adi,adt7475 +/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C > >> adi,adt7476 +/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C > >> adi,adt7490 +/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C > >> adi,adxl345 Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer > >> -adi,adxl346 Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer > >> -adi,adxl34x Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer > >> +adi,adxl346 Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer (backward-compa= tibility value "adi,adxl345" must be listed too) > > > > I'd rather drop 346 because there is no compatible for that one anywher= e. > > No need to resend, I can fix it here... >=20 > If you drop adi,adxl346, checkpatch will start complaining if it encounte= rs > it in a .dts. Boah, this is annoying. That means we need an 346 entry even if it is not different from 345 (which is fine by me). If checkpatch does it this way, that means the rule of thumb is to *always* have a dedicated compatible entry? Can someone confirm this? Why did we discuss then? Now, I am confused as well... --E/DnYTRukya0zdZ1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUt/xFAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2k5wP/1hCMgyCmq6Hd5gNycHDE54K Pq28xRysXAAsXkSCyMDug5Y2l98RNMgwuXsvgOrDpILpTYF5LB2sk21Aa6Ik5mss gahJqVof+jQxKXwxjtHmGZpXZCq95aF4wPw6+Tg6zTanWtdNcTB59uMyZC7ieLr5 SXpUU75Xhg5V3svJs2En6fKTuboGE8iAVJbZyldKuDnNp2bvGkzmYTVnOdqoaR3u VeyeV+69eiq20qfEgzX8PrsuKeMns34xyZNETgWRdXy8raXFenzQhz29+p5tMSMu gRPun7f9OzHvRVCIOgFZvG3o7z0TOJBBWaumoVGCatiqhWvdYSVzorHxW2M+I0AX pX6QvDilZAlrWa1j1KJ/GYtulsiGrvUGanwztm9pUTXqbrY5zu72I1B4nlabioVt RxpT/81Y67IrwSvL/eK1Emrh2fo0SNEhHsNqKFctDn4hr3D9dzrq5cnntO8XQUyZ nvn4GFxvbzJRPtdrpzD2stEt2Rvd59OR/L6c17h0LCOA4A60SfmRJ9IxFtrxlUdr jMBDVIu1PLOnVbkGoVTAuhyeOMfKFTQaj/gfIG3jrp6wTBHo/3niKMUC8CyFh8ce FfO5DxlVGuMvUsJnICnZ/2HgFUR5avX/ADgWFH2D8vZkf0eFD7hduisRu73oiSRN LLfY8XyQdtH/LrzvYWKs =G0qK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --E/DnYTRukya0zdZ1--