On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt > >> @@ -18,8 +18,7 @@ adi,adt7475 +/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C > >> adi,adt7476 +/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C > >> adi,adt7490 +/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C > >> adi,adxl345 Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer > >> -adi,adxl346 Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer > >> -adi,adxl34x Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer > >> +adi,adxl346 Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer (backward-compatibility value "adi,adxl345" must be listed too) > > > > I'd rather drop 346 because there is no compatible for that one anywhere. > > No need to resend, I can fix it here... > > If you drop adi,adxl346, checkpatch will start complaining if it encounters > it in a .dts. Boah, this is annoying. That means we need an 346 entry even if it is not different from 345 (which is fine by me). If checkpatch does it this way, that means the rule of thumb is to *always* have a dedicated compatible entry? Can someone confirm this? Why did we discuss then? Now, I am confused as well...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
