On 07/04/2018 03:24 PM, Nikolaus Voss wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nikolaus Voss >> <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Nikolaus Voss >>>> <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> But this discussion isn't really related to your patch. I think is >>>> correct but just said that (b) wasn't a justification to leave the I2C >>>> table, points (a) and (c) are though. I won't really be convinced that >>>> the fallback is the correct thing to do or even a good idea. >>> >>> >>> I didn't want to annoy you, I just wanted to understand why you think >>> fallback is such a bad thing that you call it a bug. And I see, it has its >>> drawbacks ;-). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify this, >>> >> >> Oh, I'm not annoyed, sorry if I sounded that way. What I tried to say >> is that I've a strong opinion on this and won't be convinced otherwise >> :) >> >> So for me is a bug because that would mean that either an entry is >> missing in an OF device table or a DTS has a node with a compatible >> string without a vendor prefix. > > Yes, I see your point (and your strong opinion :-)), but AFAIK vendor > prefix is not mandatory... At least for vendor-agnostic drivers like The latest Device Tree specification [0] says about the compatible string: "The recommended format is 'manufacturer,model', where manufacturer is a string describing the name of the manufacturer (such as a stock ticker symbol), and model specifies the model number". > "regulator-fixed" (very popular in dts files). My point is not bloating I don't think the "regulator-fixed" is a good example. Since the Device Tree should describe the hardware. The "regulator-fixed" is a convenient way to describe a fixed voltage regulator but I think is more of an exception. I'm pretty sure that the DT maintainers wouldn't ack a DT binding with a compatible string that doesn't have a manufacture prefix nowadays. > drivers with large redundant (from a driver-functional view) tables when > one table could be enough for a properly working driver. Having three You need the OF table anyways for module autoload since the I2C core will report a OF module alias. You can only do the I2C fallback trick if your driver can't be build as a module. But even in that case you would be ignoring the vendor. > different names for exactly the same isn't very beautiful IMO. > I agree with you on that. But abusing a table used by another firmware interface isn't beautiful either. So I think the best is to have consistency and always use the same table for the same firmware interface. > I hope you're still not annoyed... > Don't worry for that, it's very hard to get my annoyed :) > Niko > [0]: https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.2 Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement Red Hat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
