[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: touchscreen: silead gsl1680: Document all compatibles

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:59:00AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> The silead gsl1680 driver / binding supports a whole series of devices,
>> list the compatibles for all of them in the binding.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> -Drop the "silead,mssl1680" compatible thing, the "mssl1680" name is an
>>  ACPI thing and does not belong in the dt bindings
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt          | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt
>> index b0eca54..ad7f41a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/silead_gsl1680.txt
>> @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@
>>
>>  Required properties:
>>  - compatible           : "silead,gsl1680"
>> +                     or: "silead,gsl1688"
>> +                     or: "silead,gsl3670"
>> +                     or: "silead,gsl3675"
>> +                     or: "silead,gsl3692"
>
> Hmm, why do we need to document all compatible strings? We usually have
> only least common denominator in drievr, and device tree uses form:
>
>         compatible = "silead,<exact model>", "silead,gsl1680";
>
> Rob?

Because we require them in dts files even if the OS only uses the fallback.

>
> BTW, I do not see OF match table in the driver, did I manage to drop it?

If it is i2c, i2c has the quirk that it will match drv name to
compatible string with vendor prefix dropped. But that would imply one
of these is a fallback and the doc doesn't say that.

Rob