On Tue, 11 May 2021 16:50:51 +0200 Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 04:38:06PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > Hi Michał, > > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 04:28:47PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:54:06AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > > > KX023-1025 [1] is another accelerometer from Kionix that has lots > > > > of additional functionality compared to KXCJK-1013. It combines the > > > > motion interrupt functionality from KXCJK with the tap detection > > > > from KXTF9, plus a lot more other functionality. > > > When I researched KXTF9 support it occurred to me that the -10xx part is > > > duplicating the information in 'KXyyy' - it seems to be a project number > > > or something. I would suggest to use just 'kx023' prefix for the code > > > and DT but leave the full identification in the comments/description. > > There do seem to be two different KXTF9 from Kionix, a KXTF9-4100 [1] > > and a KXTF9-2050 [2] with separate datasheets. Have you checked if there > > is a meaningful difference between them? > > I haven't compared them thoroughly, but the versions seem to differ only > in power consumption (maybe a different manufacturing process?). The > register sets seem the same. Differ in expected Vdd supply voltage. 3.3 vs 1.8V . Looks like this has knock on effects on things like self test values. So I'd argue it's worth keeping the distinction for device tree. We could do a double compatible compatible = kionix,kx023-1024, konix,kx023; but may be too late to do that now. Jonathan > > Best Regards > Michał Mirosław
