On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 03:45:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, October 12, 2013 08:04:13 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > I think that this is intentional. We don't want that the i2c modalias > > > > matches with the ACPI device (like with the i2c:INTABCD). Instead use ACPI > > > > IDs that are added to the driver to match with the ACPI device. > > > > > > Well, I'm not really sure this was intentional, but I wonder how other bus > > > types work in that respect? > > > > We have the same for platform bus, if that's what you are asking. > > > > It probably doesn't hurt to have this patch applied but it might cause > > inadvertent match if for some reason there is an I2C client driver that > > happens to have INTABCD I2C id in its list. > > Well, if they have that id in their lists, they are supposed to be able to > handle this device, aren't they? What other reason may be there for them > to put that id into their lists? If we have two ACPI enumerated devices, they have following modalias: i2c-device0: i2c:INTABCD:00 acpi:INTABCD i2c-device1: i2c:INTABCD:01 acpi:INTABCD Likelihood that some random I2C driver has INTABCD:00 or INTABCD:01 ids in their list is minimal. However, when you turn it to this: i2c-device0: i2c:INTABCD acpi:INTABCD i2c-device1: i2c:INTABCD acpi:INTABCD It might be possible that we get a match that isn't supposed to happen. Well, OK it is pretty remote but anyway :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
