On 26/07/2024 03:25, Alex Lanzano wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 08:08:57AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/07/2024 02:47, Alex Lanzano wrote:
>>> +static const struct spi_device_id sharp_memory_ids[] = {
>>> + {"ls010b7dh04", LS010B7DH04},
>>> + {"ls011b7dh03", LS011B7DH03},
>>> + {"ls012b7dd01", LS012B7DD01},
>>> + {"ls013b7dh03", LS013B7DH03},
>>> + {"ls013b7dh05", LS013B7DH05},
>>> + {"ls018b7dh02", LS018B7DH02},
>>> + {"ls027b7dh01", LS027B7DH01},
>>> + {"ls027b7dh01a", LS027B7DH01A},
>>> + {"ls032b7dd02", LS032B7DD02},
>>> + {"ls044q7dh01", LS044Q7DH01},
>>> + {},
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, sharp_memory_ids);
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id sharp_memory_of_match[] = {
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls010b7dh04"},
>>
>> Both ID tables should be in sync. See not-so-recent IIO discussions and
>> commits.
>>
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls011b7dh03"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls012b7dd01"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls013b7dh03"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls013b7dh05"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls018b7dh02"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls027b7dh01"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls027b7dh01a"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls032b7dd02"},
>>> + {.compatible = "sharp,ls044q7dh01"},
>>> + {},
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sharp_memory_of_match);
>
> I'm having some trouble finding the discussions and commits you're referring to.
> When you say the tables should be in sync are you referring to the ordering of
> entries in the tables? Like at index x of both tables should define model y?
No, the match data.
62d3fb9dcc091ccdf25eb3b716e90e07e3ed861f
Best regards,
Krzysztof
