On 19.12.2024 16:54, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 21:36:26 +0100 > Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Exit for error on wrong chip id, otherwise driver continues > > with wrong assumptions. > Why? Chip ID does not define all future compatible parts, just the > ones we know about today. > > The reason not failing is that the moment we do exit on a mismatch > we can never support fallback device tree compatible IDs. Is there > no chance that ADI will release a backwards compatible part in the > future that we'd like to work with old kernels? > > Any mismatch in DT vs hardware present is considered a firmware > bug, not a kernel problem. > We used to reject missmatched IDs but after a long discussion with > DT maintainers it became clear that broke their model. > Ok, i will apply to what decided so. > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > > > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c | 5 +++-- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c > > index 8974df625670..e613eee7fc11 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c > > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r-hs.c > > @@ -326,8 +326,9 @@ static int ad3552r_hs_setup(struct ad3552r_hs_state *st) > > > > id |= val << 8; > > if (id != st->model_data->chip_id) > > - dev_info(st->dev, "Chip ID error. Expected 0x%x, Read 0x%x\n", > > - AD3552R_ID, id); > > + return dev_err_probe(st->dev, -ENODEV, > > + "chip id error, expected 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", > > + st->model_data->chip_id, id); > > > > /* Clear reset error flag, see ad3552r manual, rev B table 38. */ > > ret = st->data->bus_reg_write(st->back, AD3552R_REG_ADDR_ERR_STATUS, > > >
