[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170315075835.GA1438@katana>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:58:35 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table
> So there isn't an agreement if is better to just rely in the current behavior
> (and have a superfluous I2C device ID table) or fix the I2C core (and need a
> OF device ID table).
For at24, the i2c_device_id table is not superfluous! It is used outside
the DT world as well.
> Indeed, but these all are compatible strings used by DTS in mainline and so
> should be in the OF device ID table in order to be matched and the proper
> modalias reported (once the I2C core is fixed).
I'd think we should fix the DTS files instead to contain a fallback we
agree on. Say, we agree on "atmel,at24c01" as a the generic fallback,
the DTS should contain:
compatible = "<your_vendor>,<your_type>", "atmel,at24c01"
And we shall only keep compatible values in the source file which differ
in behaviour fromt the generic case.
> One option is to add #ifdef CONFIG_OF guards for the OF device table definition
> but again there's no agreement on that one since some maintainers say the it is
> better to always build the OF ID table than having #ifdefery in C code...
I don't like the #ifdeffery as well.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists