On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is > > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact > > > models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is > > > the problem that we are solving here? > > > > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all > > "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet. So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one) we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348" will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it? > > That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match > DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than > the first. Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e. if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")? Why "adi,adxl34x" is special? Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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
