Hi Wolfram, On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 02:22:27PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > I think the proper fix would be naming the I2C client after the actually > > > matched compatible property, and not after the first one? I am a bit > > > afraid of regressions when we change that, however... > > > > That would be the right way indeed. I have the same concern regarding > > regressions though. Is it worth a try to see what could break ? > > Sure! Only problem: Patches welcome(tm) or I put it on my to-do-list(tm) > ;) I've had a look, but it seems to be problematic. The name of the client is set in i2c_new_client_device(), way before we match with a driver. The name is used in the uevent sent to userspace, so changing it afterwards is likely not a good idea. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
