On 2017-04-12 17:40, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> 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 <martin.kepplin...@ginzinger.com>
>> ---
>> 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 <christian.gmei...@gmail.com>
>> *
>> @@ -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 <christian.gmei...@gmail.com>");
>> -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.
>
Why would you use "microchip,ar1020-i2c" in the dts if it's not
available? people don't obviously see, by grepping or reading,
that they have a compatible driver. ... or did I get you wrong?
I don't handle anything differently now. Factory reset has to be done
differntly though, as one example. So it'd be nice to have the option
to add data.
thanks
martin
