On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:03:08PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:03:39 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > It was discussed[1] that we should match on the first (most specific) > > entry in the device tree. > > > > The most lengthy I2C compatible entry for the MPC8349E-mITX MCU > > devices is "mc9s08qg8-mpc8349emitx" (w/o vendor name). This means > > that we have to allow longer IDs to be used in the I2C subsystem. > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg21196.html > > Nack. Just come up with shorter names. "mc9s08qg8-mpc8349emitx" is > simply too long to start with. Looking at the mcu_mpc8349emitx driver > you just submitted, you are clearly abusing the i2c client name to pass > platform-specific information, and that's bad. I'm not even sure why > you do that, given that all the names are then handled the same as far > as I can see.
The whole "matching on the first entry" thing is just a Linux-internal heuristic. If the heuristic breaks down (like it does here), then there is a mechanism to override it in of_base.c which has a compatible-->modalias translation table. g. _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c