On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:44:28 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/20/23 23:22, Mehdi Djait wrote:
> > Avoid error returns on a failure to match and instead just warn with
> > assumption that we have a correct dt-binding telling us that
> > some new device with a different ID is backwards compatible.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - no changes, this patch is introduced in the v2
> >
> > drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c | 4 +---
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > index f98393d74666..70530005cad3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > @@ -1038,9 +1038,7 @@ int kx022a_probe_internal(struct device *dev)
> > return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to access sensor\n");
> >
> > if (chip_id != KX022A_ID) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "unsupported device 0x%x\n", chip_id);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > + dev_warn(dev, "unsupported device 0x%x\n", chip_id);
>
> Just a 'nit' - no need to re-spin the series for this if there is no
> other changes requested.
>
> Maybe a slightly better wording here would be "unknown device"? If I am
> not mistaken the code proceeds because device is assumed to be supported.
>
> Jonathan, do you think this change is worth backporting? If yes, then we
> might need a Fixes tag.
We haven't backported similar cases as far as I know.
It's fine to request it explicitly gets picked up for stable if we decide
we care later.
I'll tidy up above if I take this version..
Jonathan
>
> Acked-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> > irq = fwnode_irq_get_byname(fwnode, "INT1");
> > if (irq > 0) {
>
