An update.

On: 07 October 2016 18:49, Steve Twiss wrote:
> On 07 October 2016 06:29, Keerthy [mailto:a0393...@ti.com] wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 October 2016 02:13 PM, Steve Twiss wrote:
> > > From: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
[...]
> > > +static const struct da9062_thermal_config da9062_config = {
> > > + .name = "da9062-thermal",
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct da9062_thermal_config da9061_config = {
> > > + .name = "da9061-thermal",
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct of_device_id da9062_compatible_reg_id_table[] = {
> > > + { .compatible = "dlg,da9062-thermal", .data = &da9062_config },
> > > + { .compatible = "dlg,da9061-thermal", .data = &da9061_config },
> >
> > Two separate compatible values. Do you have anything different apart
> > from the name? Why use 2 compatibles when there is absolutely no
> > difference?
> 
> Yes.
> This was a comment for the watchdog device driver as well. My concern was 
> having
> multiple devices (61 and 62) in the same system -- and allowing the driver to 
> report
> the hardware difference.
> 
> There is discussion going on about this in other threads. Not certain of the
> final outcome yet, apart from my existing proposal should be changed.

An answer to this came from comments by Dmitry Torokhov and Guenter Roeck, who
suggested this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/7/641

I will take a look at this for V2.

Regards,
Steve

Reply via email to