> > > Been there, got bitten. We only found out too late, because one driver
> > > was in i2c and the other in GPIO (or LED even?), both using "953x" :(
> > 
> > That seems like a development, review and/or merge process failure to me, I
> > wouldn't avoid generic compatible strings for that reason only.

Well, I think different here, but let's skip this discussion as it is
not really needed right now...

> > As the ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345, and as the driver
> > doesn't support the ADXL346-specific features, how about adding only the
> > adxl345 for now, and using compatible = "adi,adxl346", "adi,adxl345"; for
> > the ADXL346 ?
> 
> I spoke too fast. The driver supports ADXL346-specific features, but does so 
> by detecting the device model at runtime.
> 
> I still believe it would make sense to list both the 346 and 345 models in DT 
> for 346 devices, as they're compatible with the 345.

I agree.

> > > 2) also add "34x" as a compatible but mark it as deprecateed
> > > 3) delete "34x" from trivial devices
> > 
> > OK.

Yay :)