Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] iio: magnetometer: ak8975: Sort OF table

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 1:30 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 08:56:00AM +0100, Biju Das wrote:
> > > Sort OF table alphabetically by compatibles.
> >
> > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Wrong, I haven't suggested that. See comment to the previous patch.
> >
> > And this is definitely wrong as Geert explained already why.
> > You need to fix the code that handles the ID table first.
> 
> I retracted my own comment:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAMuHMdUVCS_D0SBtDBrLQbAkdt0ZUbMOca+ukdwUtnGqzUr+cA@mail.gmail.com
> 
> Upon a second read, I agree my reply
> 
>     Seems like it is, cfr. the scoring system in drivers/of/base.c
> 
> was confusing, as it was not super clear if it was a response to the
> first or the second line of your comment:
> 
>     You mean the OF ID list must be specifically ordered?! What a nice
> minefield!
>     This has to be fixed somewhere else, surely.
> 
> Conclusion: there is no issue, the scoring system handles primary
> vs. fallback compatible values, irrespective of ordering.

Now I'm totally confused. Previously you mentioned a couple of
different APIs — one in OF, one in SoC. AFAIU the second one
still needs to be fixed to follow the logic that OF does.

My previous understanding was that
  OF code — no issue
  SoC code — the ordering is required to be correct

Can you confirm that there is no issue in that second case?
And if there is none, why did you mention it?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko