Hello Mark, On 11/17/2015 10:19 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:14:27AM -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On 11/16/2015 06:51 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > >>> Lest someone else wonder whether this is theoretical or not, I'll save >>> them the work in pointing at an example: "st,st33zp24". See: > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/security/tpm/st33zp24-*.txt > >>> and the code is in drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/, sharing the same core >>> library, suggesting that the devices really are the same except simply >>> the bus. > >> Thanks for pointing out that example although for that specific case, >> the drivers' compatible are "st,st33zp24-i2c" and "st,st33zp24-spi" to >> avoid the issue explained before. > > Eew, that's gross. > Well, I'm not the author of the driver but I've seen many drivers doing the same so I believe the reason is to avoid the issue explained before. >> I still didn't find an example where the same compatible string is >> used for different drivers (i.e: "st,st33zp24" or "google,cros-ec") >> but the fact that is possible for legacy and not for OF is worrisome. > > There's a bunch of audio CODEC and PMIC drivers, arizona is the first > example that springs to mind but it's very common to have mixed signal > devices devices which can run in both I2C and SPI modes. > Thanks a lot for the examples, I just looked at the arizona MFD drivers and indeed the same OF device ID table is used for both the SPI and I2C drivers. Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html