On 16/08/2022 15:44, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>
>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, adxl313_spi_id);
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id adxl313_of_match[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "adi,adxl312" },
>>> { .compatible = "adi,adxl313" },
>>> + { .compatible = "adi,adxl314" },
>>
>> You miss here driver data. I don't remember which driver matching takes
>> precedence (especially in various cases like DT platforms with device
>> instantiated by MFD), but for consistency I think both device id tables
>> should have same driver data.
>
> You can set it up to try device_get_match_data() first then fallback
> to the adxl313_spi_id[] table but there isn't a nice 'standard' way to
> do it.
>
> If that isn't done, then IIRC the match is against the compatible with
> the vendor ID dropped and the table used is the spi_device_id one.
> Which is just annoyingly complex and relies on the strings matching.
>
> In the ideal world the spi_device_id table would go away but there are
> still a few users (greybus - I think + remaining board files).
> So for now something like
>
> a = device_get_match_data(dev);
> if (!a)
> a = &adxl31x_spi_regmap_config[id->data];
>
> Provides a good way of ensuring the id tables don't need to remain
> in sync.
>
I guess the only minor issue is that first driver data - ADXL312 - is
equal to 0, so above code would make consider ADXL312 as missing data.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
