Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] iio: accel: kionix-kx022a: Warn on failed matches and assume compatibility

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 06:44:28 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 4/20/23 23:22, Mehdi Djait wrote:
> > Avoid error returns on a failure to match and instead just warn with
> > assumption that we have a correct dt-binding telling us that
> > some new device with a different ID is backwards compatible.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - no changes, this patch is introduced in the v2
> > 
> >   drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c | 4 +---
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > index f98393d74666..70530005cad3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> > @@ -1038,9 +1038,7 @@ int kx022a_probe_internal(struct device *dev)
> >   		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to access sensor\n");
> >   
> >   	if (chip_id != KX022A_ID) {
> > -		dev_err(dev, "unsupported device 0x%x\n", chip_id);
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -	}
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "unsupported device 0x%x\n", chip_id);  
> 
> Just a 'nit' - no need to re-spin the series for this if there is no 
> other changes requested.
> 
> Maybe a slightly better wording here would be "unknown device"? If I am 
> not mistaken the code proceeds because device is assumed to be supported.
> 
> Jonathan, do you think this change is worth backporting? If yes, then we 
> might need a Fixes tag.

We haven't backported similar cases as far as I know. 
It's fine to request it explicitly gets picked up for stable if we decide
we care later.

I'll tidy up above if I take this version..

Jonathan

> 
> Acked-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >   
> >   	irq = fwnode_irq_get_byname(fwnode, "INT1");
> >   	if (irq > 0) {  
>