From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:06:32 -0800 Message-ID: <20150115210632.GE19367@dtor-ws> References: <1421333655-31029-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <20150115185431.GG33214@dtor-ws> <6357346.RjFSG892rq@avalon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6357346.RjFSG892rq@avalon> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Laurent Pinchart , "linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux I2C , Linux-sh list , Wolfram Sang List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is > > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact > > > models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is > > > the problem that we are solving here? > > > > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all > > "adi,adxl34" with = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet. So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one) we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348" will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it? > > That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match > DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than > the first. Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e. if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")? Why "adi,adxl34x" is special? Thanks. -- Dmitry