On Thursday 15 January 2015 15:36:37 Wolfram Sang wrote: > >>> 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 :) I'll submit patches very soon. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
