Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] IIO: st_accel_i2c.c: Use probe_new() instead of probe()
From: Javier Martinez Canillas
Date: Wed Jul 04 2018 - 09:46:44 EST
On 07/04/2018 03:24 PM, Nikolaus Voss wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nikolaus Voss
>> <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Nikolaus Voss
>>>> <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> But this discussion isn't really related to your patch. I think is
>>>> correct but just said that (b) wasn't a justification to leave the I2C
>>>> table, points (a) and (c) are though. I won't really be convinced that
>>>> the fallback is the correct thing to do or even a good idea.
>>> I didn't want to annoy you, I just wanted to understand why you think
>>> fallback is such a bad thing that you call it a bug. And I see, it has its
>>> drawbacks ;-). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify this,
>> Oh, I'm not annoyed, sorry if I sounded that way. What I tried to say
>> is that I've a strong opinion on this and won't be convinced otherwise
>> So for me is a bug because that would mean that either an entry is
>> missing in an OF device table or a DTS has a node with a compatible
>> string without a vendor prefix.
> Yes, I see your point (and your strong opinion :-)), but AFAIK vendor
> prefix is not mandatory... At least for vendor-agnostic drivers like
The latest Device Tree specification  says about the compatible string:
"The recommended format is 'manufacturer,model', where manufacturer is a
string describing the name of the manufacturer (such as a stock ticker
symbol), and model specifies the model number".
> "regulator-fixed" (very popular in dts files). My point is not bloating
I don't think the "regulator-fixed" is a good example. Since the Device Tree
should describe the hardware. The "regulator-fixed" is a convenient way to
describe a fixed voltage regulator but I think is more of an exception.
I'm pretty sure that the DT maintainers wouldn't ack a DT binding with a
compatible string that doesn't have a manufacture prefix nowadays.
> drivers with large redundant (from a driver-functional view) tables when
> one table could be enough for a properly working driver. Having three
You need the OF table anyways for module autoload since the I2C core will report
a OF module alias. You can only do the I2C fallback trick if your driver can't
be build as a module. But even in that case you would be ignoring the vendor.
> different names for exactly the same isn't very beautiful IMO.
I agree with you on that. But abusing a table used by another firmware interface
isn't beautiful either. So I think the best is to have consistency and always
use the same table for the same firmware interface.
> I hope you're still not annoyed...
Don't worry for that, it's very hard to get my annoyed :)
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement