Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] IIO: st_accel_i2c.c: Use probe_new() instead of probe()

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

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:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> 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.

> Niko
>
> [snip]
>

Best regards,
Javier