> > > Been there, got bitten. We only found out too late, because one driver > > > was in i2c and the other in GPIO (or LED even?), both using "953x" :( > > > > That seems like a development, review and/or merge process failure to me, I > > wouldn't avoid generic compatible strings for that reason only. Well, I think different here, but let's skip this discussion as it is not really needed right now... > > As the ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345, and as the driver > > doesn't support the ADXL346-specific features, how about adding only the > > adxl345 for now, and using compatible = "adi,adxl346", "adi,adxl345"; for > > the ADXL346 ? > > I spoke too fast. The driver supports ADXL346-specific features, but does so > by detecting the device model at runtime. > > I still believe it would make sense to list both the 346 and 345 models in DT > for 346 devices, as they're compatible with the 345. I agree. > > > 2) also add "34x" as a compatible but mark it as deprecateed > > > 3) delete "34x" from trivial devices > > > > OK. Yay :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
