On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 5:52 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Rather than using the fallback path in the i2c subsystem and hoping
> for no clashes across vendors, lets put in an explicit table for
> matching.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7150.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7150.c b/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7150.c
> index 0bc8c7a99883..33c8a78c076f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7150.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7150.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <linux/i2c.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
>
> @@ -655,9 +656,16 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id ad7150_id[] = {
>
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ad7150_id);
>
> +static const struct of_device_id ad7150_of_match[] = {
> + { "adi,ad7150" },
> + { "adi,ad7151" },
> + { "adi,ad7156" },
Is this missing some match_driver_data logic?
Something like this:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-iio/patch/20210207154623.433442-7-jic23@xxxxxxxxxx/
?
> + {}
> +};
> static struct i2c_driver ad7150_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "ad7150",
> + .of_match_table = ad7150_of_match,
> },
> .probe = ad7150_probe,
> .id_table = ad7150_id,
> --
> 2.30.0
>
