Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:24:03 +0200 (CEST) | From | Nikolaus Voss <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] IIO: st_accel_i2c.c: Use probe_new() instead of probe() |
| |
On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nikolaus Voss > <nikolaus.voss@loewensteinmedical.de> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Nikolaus Voss >>> <nikolaus.voss@loewensteinmedical.de> 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
| |