On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:00:00PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > Right, which is why this mostly works, but it's still better to provide > > an actual compatible string which we can be 100% certain will avoid > > conflicts. This is very low cost when one is already defining DT > > bindings. > I know that it's an easy thing to do, but I'm more worried about > what would happen if the an I2C device is registered using the > current way (stripping the compatible string and using it as a > client look-up) and we also provide a compatible entry in the > driver itself. Do you know if there is any danger of duplicate > registration or suchlike? That's totally fine, we try first with compatible properties and only look for the fallback if there aren't any. > > > Hence, there should be no need to have a compatible string in any i2c > > > driver registration information. > > We're getting away with it at present (and frankly nobody's going to > > build in two different drivers for a chip of the same name for practical > > systems anyway). > Right. In the same way as we're getting away with it when we > register a platform_device using the register/add routines. Those are all completely Linux-defined of course which helps as well.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
