Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: bmc150: Add OF device ID table

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On 04-12-17 10:44, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 09:29:38 +0100
> Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 01-12-17 12:10, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> The driver doesn't have a struct of_device_id table but supported devices
>>> are registered via Device Trees. This is working on the assumption that a
>>> I2C device registered via OF will always match a legacy I2C device ID and
>>> that the MODALIAS reported will always be of the form i2c:<device>.
>>>
>>> But this could change in the future so the correct approach is to have an
>>> OF device ID table if the devices are registered via OF.
>>>
>>> The I2C device ID table entries have the .driver_data field set, but they
>>> are not used in the driver so weren't set in the OF device table entries.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>    drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-i2c.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-i2c.c b/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-i2c.c
>>> index f85014fbaa12..8ffc308d5fd0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-i2c.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-i2c.c
>>> @@ -81,9 +81,21 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id bmc150_accel_id[] = {
>>>    
>>>    MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, bmc150_accel_id);
>>>    
>>> +static const struct of_device_id bmc150_accel_of_match[] = {
>>> +	{ .compatible = "bosch,bmc150_accel" },
>>> +	{ .compatible = "bosch,bmi055_accel" },
>>
>> These look a bit weird, there is no reason to mirror the i2c_device_ids
> 
> There has been a steady move for a long time to add these IDs with the plan
> that we would stop automatically matching against the manufacturer free
> i2c IDs. Mostly on the basis that was a hack that brought a lot
> of effectively unreviewed device tree bindings. As I understand it the
> eventual plan is to be able to get rid of that old path entirely...
> +CC Wolfram to see what his view is on this.
> 
>> here and typically for devicetree / of we only list
>> the chip model without some postfix like _accel.
>>
> 
> There is a reason for this and we've been round the houses a few times before
> with the (admittedly horrible) conclusion that we don't really have a better way.
> 
> These are multiple chips in one package wired to the same i2c bus
> there is no sensible way of telling the kernel that we actually
> have two separate devices with the same part number.  We could just declare
> that we will only support them under the IDs of the individual chips but,
> without scraping datasheets it's very difficult to tell which two parts
> have been combined in a given SKU (some manufacturers document this - some
> don't and we just have to figure it out).

Ack, Javier pointed this out to me too and you're both right :)

Regards,

Hans