On 22/02/2023 18:20, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >>> Which effectively breaks i.e. user-space instantiation for other display >>> types which now do work due to i2c_of_match_device(). >>> (so my suggestion above is not sufficient). >>> >>> Are you proposing extending and searching the I2C ID table to work around >>> that? >> >> See (1) above. This is the downside I have noticed after sending this series. >> So, the I²C ID table match has to be restored, but the above mentioned issues >> with existing table are not gone, hence they need to be addressed in the next >> version. > > I see now what you mean. So, we have even more issues in this driver: > - I²C table is not in sync with all devices supported Does anything actually rely on i2c_device_id table? ACPI would match either via ACPI or OF tables. All modern ARM systems (e.g. imx6) are DT-based. Maybe just drop the I2C ID table? > - the OF ID table seems has something really badly formed for adafruit > (just a number after a comma) Maybe it is a model number? It was documented: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/auxdisplay/holtek,ht16k33.yaml > > The latter shows how broken it is. The I²C ID table mechanism is used as > a backward compatibility to the OF. Unfortunately, user space may not provide > the data except in form of DT overlays, so for the legacy enumeration we > have only device name, which is a set of 4 digits for adafruit case. > > Now imagine if by some reason we will get adafruit2 (you name it) with > the same schema. How I²C framework can understand that you meant adafruit > and not adafruit2? Or did I miss something? > Best regards, Krzysztof
