On 14/12/2022 10:32, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:53:30 +0100 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 13/12/2022 18:15, Han Xu wrote: >>> Add this new device entry in the driver id table. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Han Xu <han.xu@xxxxxxx> >>> >>> --- >>> changes in v2 >>> - change chip info orders >>> --- >>> drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-core.c | 7 +++++++ >>> drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-i2c.c | 2 ++ >>> drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af.h | 1 + >>> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-core.c b/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-core.c >>> index 98811e4e16bb..c3589c3084ee 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-core.c >>> @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ >>> #define FXLS8962AF_DEVICE_ID 0x62 >>> #define FXLS8964AF_DEVICE_ID 0x84 >>> #define FXLS8974CF_DEVICE_ID 0x86 >>> +#define FXLS8967AF_DEVICE_ID 0x87 >>> >>> /* Raw temp channel offset */ >>> #define FXLS8962AF_TEMP_CENTER_VAL 25 >>> @@ -765,6 +766,12 @@ static const struct fxls8962af_chip_info fxls_chip_info_table[] = { >>> .channels = fxls8962af_channels, >>> .num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(fxls8962af_channels), >>> }, >>> + [fxls8967af] = { >>> + .chip_id = FXLS8967AF_DEVICE_ID, >>> + .name = "fxls8967af", >>> + .channels = fxls8962af_channels, >>> + .num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(fxls8962af_channels), >>> + }, >>> [fxls8974cf] = { >>> .chip_id = FXLS8974CF_DEVICE_ID, >>> .name = "fxls8974cf", >>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-i2c.c b/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-i2c.c >>> index 17dd56756ff9..a8944b255a28 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-i2c.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/fxls8962af-i2c.c >>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ static int fxls8962af_probe(struct i2c_client *client) >>> static const struct i2c_device_id fxls8962af_id[] = { >>> { "fxls8962af", fxls8962af }, >>> { "fxls8964af", fxls8964af }, >>> + { "fxls8967af", fxls8967af }, >>> { "fxls8974cf", fxls8974cf }, >>> {} >>> }; >>> @@ -38,6 +39,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, fxls8962af_id); >>> static const struct of_device_id fxls8962af_of_match[] = { >>> { .compatible = "nxp,fxls8962af" }, >>> { .compatible = "nxp,fxls8964af" }, >>> + { .compatible = "nxp,fxls8967af" }, >>> { .compatible = "nxp,fxls8974cf" }, >> >> This is confusing. The I2C ID table has driver data, but OF ID table >> hasn't. So are they compatible or not? > > Due to some evilness in i2c that 'works' as long as the two arrays have > matching entries. As a general rule we prefer to have the data in both, check > the firmware table first and only then fallback to i2c_device_id data on the > basis it is less fragile. > > The evilness in i2c is that the search for match data will use the dt compatible > stripped of the vendor prefix and string match that against the i2c_device_id table. > > Nice to clean this up, but not necessarily in this series (fine if it is though!) OK, so in fact devices are not fully compatible - I got mislead by OF table. I'll comment in bindings about it. Best regards, Krzysztof