Message ID | 20180925142352.24106-3-m.felsch@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | 85aa0fe73edd856365d074a5aa38c614c8b2ca45 |
Headers | show |
Series | MAX98088/9 of features | expand |
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:23:49PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote: > From: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > > MAX98088 is an older version of the MAX98089 device. With no software visible diffferences?
On 18-09-25 10:11, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:23:49PM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote: > > From: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > > > > MAX98088 is an older version of the MAX98089 device. > > With no software visible diffferences? I reviewd both RMs a 2nd time and see only a realy minor difference for register 0x02 and 0x4e. Both covers a different jack plugin/off handling. 0x02: MAX98088 - Bit6 indicate JACKSNS State MAX98089 - Bit6/7 indicates JACKSNS State But this register is never read by the driver. 0x4e: MAX98088 - Bit0 is reserved MAX98089 - Bit0 is JDWK The register has the default value for both chips and this value is set during probe(). So I see no other software differences, but maybe a Maxim FAE can help us? Regards, Marco
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/max98088.c b/sound/soc/codecs/max98088.c index fb515aaa54fc..9450d5d9c492 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/max98088.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/max98088.c @@ -1742,9 +1742,19 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id max98088_i2c_id[] = { }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max98088_i2c_id); +#if defined(CONFIG_OF) +static const struct of_device_id max98088_of_match[] = { + { .compatible = "maxim,max98088" }, + { .compatible = "maxim,max98089" }, + { } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max98088_of_match); +#endif + static struct i2c_driver max98088_i2c_driver = { .driver = { .name = "max98088", + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(max98088_of_match), }, .probe = max98088_i2c_probe, .id_table = max98088_i2c_id,