[PATCH v2 0/2] Fix OF match for adxl34x driver

[PATCH v2 0/2] Fix OF match for adxl34x driver

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

	Hi Dmitry,

This is a resent of a series by Laurent Pinchart to fix OF matching for
the adxl34x driver.

According to the discussion in response to that series, we were under
the impression this was going in through the input tree
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18293.html).

In input patchwork, the series is still marked "Awaiting Upstream"
(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?state=*&q­xl),
but actually we are waiting for you, as we can't update the affected DTS
before the driver fix has gone in ;-)

From Laurent's submission:

    This patch set fixes OF matching for the adxl34x driver when the DT
    node lists a device-specific "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346"
    compatible value first.

    The first version (see
    http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18107.html) added an OF
    match entry for the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string. The discussion
    that followed concluded that that compatible string should be
    deprecated and that the driver should match the device-specific
    strings instead.

    The first patch thus deprecates the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string
    by removing it the DT trivial devices list, and the second patch
    then adds an OF match table to the adxl34x driver.

Thanks for applying!

Laurent Pinchart (2):
  DT: i2c: Deprecate adi,adxl34x compatible string
  input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt     |  3 +--
 drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c                    | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 0/2] Fix OF match for adxl34x driver

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

	Hi Dmitry,

This is a resent of a series by Laurent Pinchart to fix OF matching for
the adxl34x driver.

According to the discussion in response to that series, we were under
the impression this was going in through the input tree
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18293.html).

In input patchwork, the series is still marked "Awaiting Upstream"
(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?state=*&q=adxl),
but actually we are waiting for you, as we can't update the affected DTS
before the driver fix has gone in ;-)

>From Laurent's submission:

    This patch set fixes OF matching for the adxl34x driver when the DT
    node lists a device-specific "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346"
    compatible value first.

    The first version (see
    http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18107.html) added an OF
    match entry for the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string. The discussion
    that followed concluded that that compatible string should be
    deprecated and that the driver should match the device-specific
    strings instead.

    The first patch thus deprecates the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string
    by removing it the DT trivial devices list, and the second patch
    then adds an OF match table to the adxl34x driver.

Thanks for applying!

Laurent Pinchart (2):
  DT: i2c: Deprecate adi,adxl34x compatible string
  input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt     |  3 +--
 drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c                    | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 1/2] DT: i2c: Deprecate adi,adxl34x compatible string

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>

DT nodes should use the more specific adi,adxl345 and adi,adxl346
compatible values instead. As the ADXL346 is backward-compatible with
the ADXL345, ADXL346 nodes must list both adi,adxl346 and adi,adxl345,
in that order.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
---
v2:
  - Add Acked-by.

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
index ad0c4ac916dd75ed..00f8652e193a940c 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
@@ -19,8 +19,7 @@ adi,adt7475		+/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C
 adi,adt7476		+/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C
 adi,adt7490		+/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C
 adi,adxl345		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer
-adi,adxl346		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer
-adi,adxl34x		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer
+adi,adxl346		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer (backward-compatibility value "adi,adxl345" must be listed too)
 at,24c08		i2c serial eeprom  (24cxx)
 atmel,24c00		i2c serial eeprom  (24cxx)
 atmel,24c01		i2c serial eeprom  (24cxx)
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH v2 1/2] DT: i2c: Deprecate adi,adxl34x compatible string

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>

DT nodes should use the more specific adi,adxl345 and adi,adxl346
compatible values instead. As the ADXL346 is backward-compatible with
the ADXL345, ADXL346 nodes must list both adi,adxl346 and adi,adxl345,
in that order.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
---
v2:
  - Add Acked-by.

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
index ad0c4ac916dd75ed..00f8652e193a940c 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
@@ -19,8 +19,7 @@ adi,adt7475		+/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C
 adi,adt7476		+/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C
 adi,adt7490		+/-1C TDM Extended Temp Range I.C
 adi,adxl345		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer
-adi,adxl346		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer
-adi,adxl34x		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer
+adi,adxl346		Three-Axis Digital Accelerometer (backward-compatibility value "adi,adxl345" must be listed too)
 at,24c08		i2c serial eeprom  (24cxx)
 atmel,24c00		i2c serial eeprom  (24cxx)
 atmel,24c01		i2c serial eeprom  (24cxx)
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>

The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
"adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.

Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
detection of the device model.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
---
v2:
  - Add Reviewed-by.

 drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
index 470bfd6f08304c67..bdb5d03b296ec6db 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 #include <linux/input.h>	/* BUS_I2C */
 #include <linux/i2c.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
 #include <linux/pm.h>
 #include "adxl34x.h"
@@ -135,11 +136,31 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id adxl34x_id[] = {
 
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, adxl34x_id);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
+static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
+	/*
+	 * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
+	 * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
+	 * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
+	/*
+	 * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
+	 * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },
+	{ }
+};
+
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, adxl34x_of_id);
+#endif
+
 static struct i2c_driver adxl34x_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "adxl34x",
 		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 		.pm = &adxl34x_i2c_pm,
+		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(adxl34x_of_id),
 	},
 	.probe    = adxl34x_i2c_probe,
 	.remove   = adxl34x_i2c_remove,
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>

The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
"adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.

Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
detection of the device model.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas-jBu1N2QxHDJrcw3mvpCnnVaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas-gXvu3+zWzMSzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
---
v2:
  - Add Reviewed-by.

 drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
index 470bfd6f08304c67..bdb5d03b296ec6db 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 #include <linux/input.h>	/* BUS_I2C */
 #include <linux/i2c.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
 #include <linux/pm.h>
 #include "adxl34x.h"
@@ -135,11 +136,31 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id adxl34x_id[] = {
 
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, adxl34x_id);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
+static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
+	/*
+	 * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
+	 * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
+	 * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
+	/*
+	 * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
+	 * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },
+	{ }
+};
+
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, adxl34x_of_id);
+#endif
+
 static struct i2c_driver adxl34x_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "adxl34x",
 		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 		.pm = &adxl34x_i2c_pm,
+		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(adxl34x_of_id),
 	},
 	.probe    = adxl34x_i2c_probe,
 	.remove   = adxl34x_i2c_remove,
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:26PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> 
> The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
> 
> Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> detection of the device model.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> ---
> v2:
>   - Add Reviewed-by.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:26PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>
> 
> The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
> 
> Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> detection of the device model.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>
> Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas-jBu1N2QxHDJrcw3mvpCnnVaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas-gXvu3+zWzMSzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> v2:
>   - Add Reviewed-by.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas-/R6kz+dDXgpPR4JQBCEnsQ@public.gmane.org>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] DT: i2c: Deprecate adi,adxl34x compatible string

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:25PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> 
> DT nodes should use the more specific adi,adxl345 and adi,adxl346
> compatible values instead. As the ADXL346 is backward-compatible with
> the ADXL345, ADXL346 nodes must list both adi,adxl346 and adi,adxl345,
> in that order.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> ---
> v2:
>   - Add Acked-by.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] DT: i2c: Deprecate adi,adxl34x compatible string

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:25PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> 
> DT nodes should use the more specific adi,adxl345 and adi,adxl346
> compatible values instead. As the ADXL346 is backward-compatible with
> the ADXL345, ADXL346 nodes must list both adi,adxl346 and adi,adxl345,
> in that order.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> ---
> v2:
>   - Add Acked-by.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix OF match for adxl34x driver

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:24PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 	Hi Dmitry,
> 
> This is a resent of a series by Laurent Pinchart to fix OF matching for
> the adxl34x driver.
> 
> According to the discussion in response to that series, we were under
> the impression this was going in through the input tree
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18293.html).
> 
> In input patchwork, the series is still marked "Awaiting Upstream"
> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?state=*&q­xl),
> but actually we are waiting for you, as we can't update the affected DTS
> before the driver fix has gone in ;-)
> 
> From Laurent's submission:
> 
>     This patch set fixes OF matching for the adxl34x driver when the DT
>     node lists a device-specific "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346"
>     compatible value first.
> 
>     The first version (see
>     http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18107.html) added an OF
>     match entry for the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string. The discussion
>     that followed concluded that that compatible string should be
>     deprecated and that the driver should match the device-specific
>     strings instead.
> 
>     The first patch thus deprecates the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string
>     by removing it the DT trivial devices list, and the second patch
>     then adds an OF match table to the adxl34x driver.
> 
> Thanks for applying!

Applied and sorry for the delay.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix OF match for adxl34x driver

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:24PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 	Hi Dmitry,
> 
> This is a resent of a series by Laurent Pinchart to fix OF matching for
> the adxl34x driver.
> 
> According to the discussion in response to that series, we were under
> the impression this was going in through the input tree
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18293.html).
> 
> In input patchwork, the series is still marked "Awaiting Upstream"
> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/list/?state=*&q=adxl),
> but actually we are waiting for you, as we can't update the affected DTS
> before the driver fix has gone in ;-)
> 
> From Laurent's submission:
> 
>     This patch set fixes OF matching for the adxl34x driver when the DT
>     node lists a device-specific "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346"
>     compatible value first.
> 
>     The first version (see
>     http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-i2c/msg18107.html) added an OF
>     match entry for the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string. The discussion
>     that followed concluded that that compatible string should be
>     deprecated and that the driver should match the device-specific
>     strings instead.
> 
>     The first patch thus deprecates the "adi,adxl34x" compatible string
>     by removing it the DT trivial devices list, and the second patch
>     then adds an OF match table to the adxl34x driver.
> 
> Thanks for applying!

Applied and sorry for the delay.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix OF match for adxl34x driver

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Dmitry,

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:24PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> This is a resent of a series by Laurent Pinchart to fix OF matching for
>> the adxl34x driver.

> Applied and sorry for the delay.

Thanks a lot!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix OF match for adxl34x driver

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Dmitry,

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:42:24PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> This is a resent of a series by Laurent Pinchart to fix OF matching for
>> the adxl34x driver.

> Applied and sorry for the delay.

Thanks a lot!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Dmitry,

On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:50:53 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:34:00PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:06:32 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>>>> I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> >>>>> "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using
> >>>>> exact models and the physical device does not match do we abort
> >>>>> probe? What is the problem that we are solving here?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> >>>> "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.
> >> 
> >> So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
> >> want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
> >> we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
> >> will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?
> > 
> > Please remember that compatible strings shouldn't be decided based on a
> > particular operating system implementation.
> 
> In this case we can never have generic compatible strings of whatever
> since in 10 years there might appear an OS that handles them
> differently. Let's be a bit realistic here as well.

I don't agree with you. The generic compatible strings should express 
compatibility with a hardware interface to the system, not compatibility with 
particular drivers on particular operating systems. We can thus have generic 
compatible strings without taking the OS into account.

> >>> That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver
> >>> won't match DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in
> >>> positions other than the first.
> >> 
> >> Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
> >> if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
> > > Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?
> > 
> > The problem on the driver side is that the automatic I2C DT compatible to
> > device name matching implementation only tries to match with the first
> > compatible string without looking at the other ones. The driver thus needs
> > to be enhanced with an explicit OF match table to be able to match on DT
> > nodes that specify "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" as the first compatible
> > entry.
>
> Why don't we enhance I2C core instead to do proper matching?

That would also be possible, but I believe that patch 1/2 is still the right 
thing to do, in which case patch 2/2 is required anyway.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Dmitry,

On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:50:53 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:34:00PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:06:32 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>>>> I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> >>>>> "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using
> >>>>> exact models and the physical device does not match do we abort
> >>>>> probe? What is the problem that we are solving here?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> >>>> "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.
> >> 
> >> So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
> >> want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
> >> we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
> >> will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?
> > 
> > Please remember that compatible strings shouldn't be decided based on a
> > particular operating system implementation.
> 
> In this case we can never have generic compatible strings of whatever
> since in 10 years there might appear an OS that handles them
> differently. Let's be a bit realistic here as well.

I don't agree with you. The generic compatible strings should express 
compatibility with a hardware interface to the system, not compatibility with 
particular drivers on particular operating systems. We can thus have generic 
compatible strings without taking the OS into account.

> >>> That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver
> >>> won't match DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in
> >>> positions other than the first.
> >> 
> >> Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
> >> if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
> > > Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?
> > 
> > The problem on the driver side is that the automatic I2C DT compatible to
> > device name matching implementation only tries to match with the first
> > compatible string without looking at the other ones. The driver thus needs
> > to be enhanced with an explicit OF match table to be able to match on DT
> > nodes that specify "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" as the first compatible
> > entry.
>
> Why don't we enhance I2C core instead to do proper matching?

That would also be possible, but I believe that patch 1/2 is still the right 
thing to do, in which case patch 2/2 is required anyway.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 01/15/2015 11:34 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

>>> I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
>>> "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
>>> models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
>>> the problem that we are solving here?

>> Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
>> "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

> That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match
> DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than
> the first.

    Let's also not forget that wildcards in the "compatible" prop are not 
really allowed.

WBR, Sergei

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 01/15/2015 11:34 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

>>> I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
>>> "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
>>> models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
>>> the problem that we are solving here?

>> Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
>> "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

> That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match
> DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than
> the first.

    Let's also not forget that wildcards in the "compatible" prop are not 
really allowed.

WBR, Sergei

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:34:00PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:06:32 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > > > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using
> > > > > exact models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe?
> > > > > What is the problem that we are solving here?
> > > > 
> > > > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> > > > "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.
> > 
> > So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
> > want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
> > we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
> > will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?
> 
> Please remember that compatible strings shouldn't be decided based on a 
> particular operating system implementation.

In this case we can never have generic compatible strings of whatever
since in 10 years there might appear an OS that handles them
differently. Let's be a bit realistic here as well.

> 
> > > That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't
> > > match DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions
> > > other than the first.
> > 
> > Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
> > if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
> > Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?
> 
> The problem on the driver side is that the automatic I2C DT compatible to 
> device name matching implementation only tries to match with the first 
> compatible string without looking at the other ones. The driver thus needs to 
> be enhanced with an explicit OF match table to be able to match on DT nodes 
> that specify "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" as the first compatible entry.

Why don't we enhance I2C core instead to do proper matching?

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:34:00PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:06:32 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > > > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using
> > > > > exact models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe?
> > > > > What is the problem that we are solving here?
> > > > 
> > > > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> > > > "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.
> > 
> > So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
> > want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
> > we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
> > will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?
> 
> Please remember that compatible strings shouldn't be decided based on a 
> particular operating system implementation.

In this case we can never have generic compatible strings of whatever
since in 10 years there might appear an OS that handles them
differently. Let's be a bit realistic here as well.

> 
> > > That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't
> > > match DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions
> > > other than the first.
> > 
> > Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
> > if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
> > Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?
> 
> The problem on the driver side is that the automatic I2C DT compatible to 
> device name matching implementation only tries to match with the first 
> compatible string without looking at the other ones. The driver thus needs to 
> be enhanced with an explicit OF match table to be able to match on DT nodes 
> that specify "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" as the first compatible entry.

Why don't we enhance I2C core instead to do proper matching?

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:06:32 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using
> > > > exact models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe?
> > > > What is the problem that we are solving here?
> > > 
> > > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> > > "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.
> 
> So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
> want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
> we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
> will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?

Please remember that compatible strings shouldn't be decided based on a 
particular operating system implementation.

> > That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't
> > match DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions
> > other than the first.
> 
> Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
> if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
> Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?

The problem on the driver side is that the automatic I2C DT compatible to 
device name matching implementation only tries to match with the first 
compatible string without looking at the other ones. The driver thus needs to 
be enhanced with an explicit OF match table to be able to match on DT nodes 
that specify "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" as the first compatible entry.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:06:32 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using
> > > > exact models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe?
> > > > What is the problem that we are solving here?
> > > 
> > > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> > > "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.
> 
> So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
> want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
> we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
> will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?

Please remember that compatible strings shouldn't be decided based on a 
particular operating system implementation.

> > That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't
> > match DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions
> > other than the first.
> 
> Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
> if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
> Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?

The problem on the driver side is that the automatic I2C DT compatible to 
device name matching implementation only tries to match with the first 
compatible string without looking at the other ones. The driver thus needs to 
be enhanced with an explicit OF match table to be able to match on DT nodes 
that specify "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" as the first compatible entry.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
> > > models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
> > > the problem that we are solving here?
> > 
> > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> > "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?

> 
> That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match 
> DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than 
> the first.

Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
> > > models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
> > > the problem that we are solving here?
> > 
> > Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> > "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

So, what? When we encounter such devices and decide that we actually
want a different driver for them (instead of enhancing the existing one)
we'll give them their own compatible string. It's not like "adi,adxl348"
will automatically match with "adi,adxl34x", is it?

> 
> That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match 
> DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than 
> the first.

Will it match anything else in the position other than 1st (i.e.
if device has compatible sting like "adi,adxl345-1", "adi,adxl345")?
Why "adi,adxl34x" is special?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
> > models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
> > the problem that we are solving here?
> 
> Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match 
DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than 
the first.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Thursday 15 January 2015 21:00:37 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> > "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
> > models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
> > the problem that we are solving here?
> 
> Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
> "adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

That's one of the reasons. Another one is that the adxl34x driver won't match 
DT nodes that list the "adi,adxl34x" compatible value in positions other than 
the first.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
> models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
> the problem that we are solving here?

Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
"adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
> "adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
> models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
> the problem that we are solving here?

Because there's no guarantee that the driver actually supports all
"adi,adxl34<x>" with <x> = 0..9, some of which don't exist yet.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:45:33PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> > The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> > the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> > mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> > nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> > "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> > node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
> >
> > Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> > entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> > backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> > detection of the device model.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> 
> > --- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
> > +       /*
> > +        * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
> > +        * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
> > +        * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
> > +        */
> > +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
> > +       /*
> > +        * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
> > +        * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".
> 
> Ideally, the two comments above are moved to a real DT binding document ;-)
> 
> > +        */
> > +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },
> 
> I'd append "/* deprecated */" to the line above, so "git grep adxl34x"
> will show its deprecated status.

I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
"adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
the problem that we are solving here?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:45:33PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> > the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> > mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> > nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> > "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> > node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
> >
> > Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> > entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> > backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> > detection of the device model.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>
> 
> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas-gXvu3+zWzMSzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
> 
> > --- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
> > +       /*
> > +        * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
> > +        * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
> > +        * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
> > +        */
> > +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
> > +       /*
> > +        * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
> > +        * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".
> 
> Ideally, the two comments above are moved to a real DT binding document ;-)
> 
> > +        */
> > +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },
> 
> I'd append "/* deprecated */" to the line above, so "git grep adxl34x"
> will show its deprecated status.

I still do not understand what we are trying to fix here. Why is
"adi,adxl34x" compatible string no good anymore? If we start using exact
models and the physical device does not match do we abort probe? What is
the problem that we are solving here?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
>
> Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> detection of the device model.

Thanks!

> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>

Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>

> --- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c

> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
> +       /*
> +        * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
> +        * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
> +        * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
> +        */
> +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
> +       /*
> +        * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
> +        * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".

Ideally, the two comments above are moved to a real DT binding document ;-)

> +        */
> +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },

I'd append "/* deprecated */" to the line above, so "git grep adxl34x"
will show its deprecated status.

> +       { }

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
>
> Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> detection of the device model.

Thanks!

> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>

Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas-gXvu3+zWzMSzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>

> --- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c

> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
> +       /*
> +        * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
> +        * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
> +        * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
> +        */
> +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
> +       /*
> +        * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
> +        * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".

Ideally, the two comments above are moved to a real DT binding document ;-)

> +        */
> +       { .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },

I'd append "/* deprecated */" to the line above, so "git grep adxl34x"
will show its deprecated status.

> +       { }

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 887 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:54:15PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
> 
> Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> detection of the device model.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>

Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 887 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:54:15PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
> the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
> mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
> nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
> "adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
> node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.
> 
> Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
> entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
> backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
> detection of the device model.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>

Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
"adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.

Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
detection of the device model.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
---
 drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
index 416f47ddcc90..1e028f1f221c 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 #include <linux/input.h>	/* BUS_I2C */
 #include <linux/i2c.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
 #include <linux/pm.h>
 #include "adxl34x.h"
@@ -137,11 +138,31 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id adxl34x_id[] = {
 
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, adxl34x_id);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
+static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
+	/*
+	 * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
+	 * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
+	 * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
+	/*
+	 * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
+	 * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },
+	{ }
+};
+
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, adxl34x_of_id);
+#endif
+
 static struct i2c_driver adxl34x_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "adxl34x",
 		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 		.pm = &adxl34x_i2c_pm,
+		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(adxl34x_of_id),
 	},
 	.probe    = adxl34x_i2c_probe,
 	.remove   = adxl34x_i2c_remove,
-- 
2.0.5

[PATCH v2 2/2] input: adxl34x: Add OF match support

[Laurent Pinchart]

The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
nodes the compatible property will contain the more specific
"adi,adxl345" or "adi,adxl346" value first. This prevents the device
node from being matched with the adxl34x driver.

Fix this by adding an OF match table with an "adi,adxl345" compatible
entry. There's no need to add the "adi,adxl346" entry as the ADXL346 is
backward-compatible with the ADXL345 with differences handled by runtime
detection of the device model.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
---
 drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
index 416f47ddcc90..1e028f1f221c 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x-i2c.c
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 #include <linux/input.h>	/* BUS_I2C */
 #include <linux/i2c.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/types.h>
 #include <linux/pm.h>
 #include "adxl34x.h"
@@ -137,11 +138,31 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id adxl34x_id[] = {
 
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, adxl34x_id);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
+static const struct of_device_id adxl34x_of_id[] = {
+	/*
+	 * The ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345. Differences are
+	 * handled by runtime detection of the device model, there's thus no
+	 * need for listing the "adi,adxl346" compatible value explicitly.
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl345", },
+	/*
+	 * Deprecated, DT nodes should use one or more of the device-specific
+	 * compatible values "adi,adxl345" and "adi,adxl346".
+	 */
+	{ .compatible = "adi,adxl34x", },
+	{ }
+};
+
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, adxl34x_of_id);
+#endif
+
 static struct i2c_driver adxl34x_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "adxl34x",
 		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 		.pm = &adxl34x_i2c_pm,
+		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(adxl34x_of_id),
 	},
 	.probe    = adxl34x_i2c_probe,
 	.remove   = adxl34x_i2c_remove,
-- 
2.0.5