On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:52 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 5:36 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 1:51 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: ... > > > It seems like this is a sign that nobody is actually using the i2c match > > > table. > > You can't know. The I2C ID table allows to instantiate a device from > user space by supplying it's address and a name, that has to be > matched with the one in ID table. > > > > It was probably added because the original author just copy/pasted > > > from something else, but obviously it hasn't been kept up to date and isn't > > > working. > > How can you be so sure? > > > > While your patch would make it work for "anx7814", it wouldn't > > > make it work for any of the other similar parts. ...and yes, you could add > > > support for those parts in your patch too, but IMO it makes more sense to > > > just delete the i2c table and when someone has an actual need then they can > > > re-add it. > > > > > > Sound OK? > > No. Please, do not remove the I2C ID table. It had already been > discussed a few years ago. > > > Yes, it make sense, as it saves some memory Okay, reading code a bit, it seems that it won't work with purely i2c ID matching. So the question here is "Do we want to allow enumeration via sysfs or not?" -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
