From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932944AbaJWSra (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:47:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22873 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755888AbaJWSqQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:46:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:45:54 -0400 From: Benjamin Tissoires To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Benson Leung , jkosina@suse.cz, aduggan@synaptics.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org, satoshi.noguchi@jp.synaptics.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: i2c-hid: Add hid-over-i2c name to i2c id table. Message-ID: <20141023184554.GB18048@mail.corp.redhat.com> References: <1413323041-19468-1-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org> <20141014225935.GA22177@dtor-ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141014225935.GA22177@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Oct 14 2014 or thereabouts, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 02:44:01PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote: > > When using the device tree binding of compatible = "hid-over-i2c" > > the i2c id table also needs to have that name in order to > > auto load this driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benson Leung > > --- > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > > index 747d544..1a7605f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > > +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > > @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops i2c_hid_pm = { > > > > static const struct i2c_device_id i2c_hid_id_table[] = { > > { "hid", 0 }, > > + { "hid-over-i2c", 0 }, > > { }, > > }; > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, i2c_hid_id_table); > > So we already emit this string this as a module device table (OF one), > why do we need to duplicate it in I2C? This seems like a generic problem > and not an individual driver one. > Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a chromium problem, rather than a generic OF one? IIRC, when I introduced the OF binding, the name did not need to be in the i2c id table because udev was taking that in charge. At least I do not remember having to manually modprobing the driver. A quick check in the drivers/input/touchscreen shows that many OF enumerated touchscreens do not have an exact duplicate of the of compatible name and the i2c device id one. Most of them have a vendor prefix in the of name. I did not used this binding for a long time, so I can not guarantee I am right, but this change seems weird to me. Cheers, Benjamin