An update. On: 07 October 2016 18:49, Steve Twiss wrote: > On 07 October 2016 06:29, Keerthy [mailto:a0393675@xxxxxx] wrote: > > On Thursday 06 October 2016 02:13 PM, Steve Twiss wrote: > > > From: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx> [...] > > > +static const struct da9062_thermal_config da9062_config = { > > > + .name = "da9062-thermal", > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static const struct da9062_thermal_config da9061_config = { > > > + .name = "da9061-thermal", > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static const struct of_device_id da9062_compatible_reg_id_table[] = { > > > + { .compatible = "dlg,da9062-thermal", .data = &da9062_config }, > > > + { .compatible = "dlg,da9061-thermal", .data = &da9061_config }, > > > > Two separate compatible values. Do you have anything different apart > > from the name? Why use 2 compatibles when there is absolutely no > > difference? > > Yes. > This was a comment for the watchdog device driver as well. My concern was having > multiple devices (61 and 62) in the same system -- and allowing the driver to report > the hardware difference. > > There is discussion going on about this in other threads. Not certain of the > final outcome yet, apart from my existing proposal should be changed. An answer to this came from comments by Dmitry Torokhov and Guenter Roeck, who suggested this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/7/641 I will take a look at this for V2. Regards, Steve -- 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
