On Oct 14 2014 or thereabouts, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 02:44:01PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
> > When using the device tree binding of compatible = "hid-over-i2c"
> > the i2c id table also needs to have that name in order to
> > auto load this driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benson Leung <bleung@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
> > index 747d544..1a7605f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
> > @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops i2c_hid_pm = {
> >
> > static const struct i2c_device_id i2c_hid_id_table[] = {
> > { "hid", 0 },
> > + { "hid-over-i2c", 0 },
> > { },
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, i2c_hid_id_table);
>
> So we already emit this string this as a module device table (OF one),
> why do we need to duplicate it in I2C? This seems like a generic problem
> and not an individual driver one.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a chromium problem, rather than a
generic OF one?
IIRC, when I introduced the OF binding, the name did not need to be in
the i2c id table because udev was taking that in charge. At least I do
not remember having to manually modprobing the driver.
A quick check in the drivers/input/touchscreen shows that many OF
enumerated touchscreens do not have an exact duplicate of the of
compatible name and the i2c device id one. Most of them have a vendor
prefix in the of name.
I did not used this binding for a long time, so I can not guarantee I am
right, but this change seems weird to me.
Cheers,
Benjamin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
