On Mar 08 2016 or thereabouts, Dmitry Torokhov 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, since i2c core reports module alias as i2c:<string> where
> <string> is compatible string of OF binding stripped of manufacturer's
> prefix.
OK, so the story here is during the first submissions, I had something
similar (i2c-hid or so). I was then told that it was not necessary to
use "i2c" in the name given that it was an I2C driver already. But it
looks like when I created the device tree binding, I forgot about it and
messed around a little bit, again.
My apologies, and:
Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com>.
Would it make sense to remove the other name ("hid") which should have
less compatibility issues (all the users *should* be in the kernel
tree).
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> Signed-off-by: Benson Leung <ble...@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <d...@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 b921693..a2c6c98 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
> @@ -1191,6 +1191,7 @@ 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);
> --
> 2.7.0.rc3.207.g0ac5344
>
>
> --
> Dmitry
