On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:17 PM Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:29:53AM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 6:36 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, I refreshed the branch with fixes and a couple of new patches. It is
> > > on top of 5.3 now. If this works for you guys I will be merging it for
> > > 5.5.
> > >
> >
> > According to the ili2117a/2118a datasheet I have, there are still a
> > few loose ends.
> > Some of these might be too inconsequential to worry about.
> > Dmitry, tell me which ones you think are important, if any,
> > and I will spin a patch if you like. Or you can do it, just let me know.
> >
> > > { "ili210x", (long)&ili210x_chip },
> > > { "ili2117", (long)&ili211x_chip },
> > > { "ili251x", (long)&ili251x_chip },
> > >
> > > { .compatible = "ilitek,ili210x", .data = &ili210x_chip },
> > > { .compatible = "ilitek,ili2117", .data = &ili211x_chip },
> > > { .compatible = "ilitek,ili251x", .data = &ili251x_chip },
> >
> > My datasheet says ILI2117A/ILI2118A, so maybe the compatible string should
> > really be "ilitek,ili211x", just like the other variants ?
>
> We have not landed the DT for 2117, so we can either rename it as
> "ilitek,ili211x" or have 2 separate compatibles.
>
> Rob, do you have preference?
The rule is we don't do wildcards for compatible strings. However, if
there's not a visible difference to s/w or you can determine which is
which by ID registers, then it is fine to have a single compatible. I
couldn't find a datasheet, so can't give better answer.
Rob
