On 05/07/2024 11:11, Marek Vasut wrote: > Add LiteOn LTR-308 support into LTR-F216A kernel driver. > > The two devices seem to have almost identical register map, except that > the LTR-308 does not have three CLEAR_DATA registers, which are unused > by this driver. Furthermore, LTR-308 and LTR-F216A use different lux > calculation constants, 0.6 and 0.45 respectively. Both differences are > handled using chip info data. > > https://optoelectronics.liteon.com/upload/download/DS86-2016-0027/LTR-308ALS_Final_%20DS_V1%201.pdf > https://optoelectronics.liteon.com/upload/download/DS86-2019-0016/LTR-F216A_Final_DS_V1.4.PDF > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> > --- ... > mutex_init(&data->lock); > > @@ -520,15 +537,27 @@ static int ltrf216a_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) > static DEFINE_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS(ltrf216a_pm_ops, ltrf216a_runtime_suspend, > ltrf216a_runtime_resume, NULL); > > +struct ltr_chip_info ltr308_chip_info = { static const > + .has_clear_data = false, > + .lux_multiplier = 60, > +}; > + > +struct ltr_chip_info ltrf216a_chip_info = { static const > + .has_clear_data = true, > + .lux_multiplier = 45, > +}; > + > static const struct i2c_device_id ltrf216a_id[] = { > - { "ltrf216a" }, > + { "ltr308", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)<r308_chip_info }, > + { "ltrf216a", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)<rf216a_chip_info }, > {} > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ltrf216a_id); > > static const struct of_device_id ltrf216a_of_match[] = { > - { .compatible = "liteon,ltrf216a" }, > - { .compatible = "ltr,ltrf216a" }, > + { .compatible = "liteon,ltr308", .data = <r308_chip_info }, > + { .compatible = "liteon,ltrf216a", .data = <rf216a_chip_info }, > + { .compatible = "ltr,ltrf216a", .data = <rf216a_chip_info }, Drop this one. You cannot have undocumented compatibles - and checkpatch tells you this - and we do not want to accept stuff just because someone made something somewhere (e.g. ACPI, out of tree junk etc). There was similar effort in the past and we made it clear. Best regards, Krzysztof
