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

[Nikolaus Voss]

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:
> >
> > [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.

Yes, I see your point (and your strong opinion :-)), but AFAIK vendor 
prefix is not mandatory... At least for vendor-agnostic drivers like 
"regulator-fixed" (very popular in dts files). My point is not bloating 
drivers with large redundant (from a driver-functional view) tables when 
one table could be enough for a properly working driver. Having three 
different names for exactly the same isn't very beautiful IMO.

I hope you're still not annoyed...

Niko