Hi Andrew,
> Am 16.11.2017 um 16:53 schrieb Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com>:
>
> On 11/16/2017 07:43 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>
>>> Am 16.11.2017 um 13:32 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkei...@ti.com>:
>>>
>>> On 16/11/17 10:50, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>> The vendor name was "toppoly" but other panels and the vendor list
>>>> have defined it as "tpo". So let's fix it in driver and bindings.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>>> -MODULE_ALIAS("spi:toppoly,td028ttec1");
>>>> +MODULE_ALIAS("spi:tpo,td028ttec1");
>>>
>>> Doesn't this mean that the module won't load if you have old bindings?
>>
>> Hm.
>>
>> Well, I think it can load but doesn't automatically from DT strings which
>> might
>> be unexpected.
>>
>>> Can't we have two module aliases?
>>
>> I think we can. Just a random example:
>> https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/w1/slaves/w1_therm.c#L754
>>
>> So we should keep both.
>
> Even better would be to drop both MODULE_ALIAS and let the
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro define them for your from the SPI id table.
Why would that be better?
As far as I see it will need more code and changes than adding one line of
MODULE_ALIAS.
> Although it doesn't look like this driver has an SPI id table, you
> should probably add one, I be interested to see if this module is always
> being matched through the "spi" or the "of" alias..
Could you please propose how that code should look like, so that I can test?
BR and thanks,
Nikolaus Schaller
>
>>
>> Should I submit a new version?
>>
>> BR,
>> Nikolaus
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
