Hi Martin,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:27:57PM +0200, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> ar1021_i2c simply also supports the ar1020 device we use. This is tested.
> They also share the same datasheet:
>
> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/40001393C.pdf
>
> We differentiate not only to make it obvious that we support both devices,
> but also to be able to implement the few model specific things in the
> future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig | 4 ++--
> drivers/input/touchscreen/ar1021_i2c.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig
> b/drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig
> index 33c62e5..535b91a 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig
> @@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ config TOUCHSCREEN_AR1021_I2C
> tristate "Microchip AR1021 i2c touchscreen"
> depends on I2C && OF
> help
> - Say Y here if you have the Microchip AR1021 touchscreen controller
> - chip in your system.
> + Say Y here if you have the Microchip AR1020 or AR1021 touchscreen
> + controller chip in your system.
>
> If unsure, say N.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ar1021_i2c.c
> b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ar1021_i2c.c
> index 6562b17..1767257 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ar1021_i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ar1021_i2c.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /*
> - * Microchip AR1021 driver for I2C
> + * Microchip AR1020 and AR1021 driver for I2C
> *
> * Author: Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>
> *
> @@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ struct ar1021_i2c {
> u8 data[AR1021_TOCUH_PKG_SIZE];
> };
>
> +enum {
> + ar1021,
> + ar1020,
> +};
> +
> static irqreturn_t ar1021_i2c_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> {
> struct ar1021_i2c *ar1021 = dev_id;
> @@ -151,13 +156,15 @@ static int __maybe_unused ar1021_i2c_resume(struct
> device *dev)
> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(ar1021_i2c_pm, ar1021_i2c_suspend,
> ar1021_i2c_resume);
>
> static const struct i2c_device_id ar1021_i2c_id[] = {
> - { "MICROCHIP_AR1021_I2C", 0 },
> + { "MICROCHIP_AR1021_I2C", ar1021 },
> + { "MICROCHIP_AR1020_I2C", ar1020 },
> { },
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ar1021_i2c_id);
>
> static const struct of_device_id ar1021_i2c_of_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "microchip,ar1021-i2c", },
> + { .compatible = "microchip,ar1020-i2c", },
> { }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ar1021_i2c_of_match);
> @@ -175,5 +182,5 @@ static struct i2c_driver ar1021_i2c_driver = {
> module_i2c_driver(ar1021_i2c_driver);
>
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Christian Gmeiner <[email protected]>");
> -MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Microchip AR1021 I2C Driver");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Microchip AR1020 and AR1021 I2C Driver");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> --
> 2.1.4
>
I do not see where you handle ar1020 differently from ar1021. If devices
are compatible, you do not need to add a new compatible to the driver,
simply use it in the binding:
compatible = "microchip,ar1020-i2c", "microchip,ar1021-i2c";
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
