> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my > point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which > would adversely affect this option. If you think that it does, can you > specify how please? Currently, if a driver would be DT only and does not provide a seperate i2c_device_id table, then the driver is unusable with method 4. I don't like to have some drivers being capable of it and some not. > Does the sysfs method create a i2c_device_id table? If not, how does > it probe successfully pre-patch? The sysfs method creates a device. Its name is matched against i2c_device_ids only since it does not have a node pointer for DT to be matched against.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
