| Message ID | 1413323041-19468-1-git-send-email-bleung@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Jiri Kosina |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 02:44:01PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote: > When using the device tree binding of compatible = "hid-over-i2c" > the i2c id table also needs to have that name in order to > auto load this driver. > > Signed-off-by: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org> > --- > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > index 747d544..1a7605f 100644 > --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops i2c_hid_pm = { > > static const struct i2c_device_id i2c_hid_id_table[] = { > { "hid", 0 }, > + { "hid-over-i2c", 0 }, > { }, > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, i2c_hid_id_table); So we already emit this string this as a module device table (OF one), why do we need to duplicate it in I2C? This seems like a generic problem and not an individual driver one. Thanks.
On Oct 14 2014 or thereabouts, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 02:44:01PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote: > > When using the device tree binding of compatible = "hid-over-i2c" > > the i2c id table also needs to have that name in order to > > auto load this driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org> > > --- > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > > index 747d544..1a7605f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > > +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c > > @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops i2c_hid_pm = { > > > > static const struct i2c_device_id i2c_hid_id_table[] = { > > { "hid", 0 }, > > + { "hid-over-i2c", 0 }, > > { }, > > }; > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, i2c_hid_id_table); > > So we already emit this string this as a module device table (OF one), > why do we need to duplicate it in I2C? This seems like a generic problem > and not an individual driver one. > Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a chromium problem, rather than a generic OF one? IIRC, when I introduced the OF binding, the name did not need to be in the i2c id table because udev was taking that in charge. At least I do not remember having to manually modprobing the driver. A quick check in the drivers/input/touchscreen shows that many OF enumerated touchscreens do not have an exact duplicate of the of compatible name and the i2c device id one. Most of them have a vendor prefix in the of name. I did not used this binding for a long time, so I can not guarantee I am right, but this change seems weird to me. Cheers, Benjamin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c index 747d544..1a7605f 100644 --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops i2c_hid_pm = { static const struct i2c_device_id i2c_hid_id_table[] = { { "hid", 0 }, + { "hid-over-i2c", 0 }, { }, }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, i2c_hid_id_table);
When using the device tree binding of compatible = "hid-over-i2c" the i2c id table also needs to have that name in order to auto load this driver. Signed-off-by: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org> --- drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)