Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 16:38:06 +0200
From:   Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
To:     =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Robert Yang <decatf@gmail.com>, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] iio: accel: kxcjk-1013: Add support for KX023-1025
Message-ID: <YJqWzgmxVEvfElZj@gerhold.net>
References: <20210511095409.9290-1-stephan@gerhold.net>
 <20210511142847.GA4413@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20210511142847.GA4413@qmqm.qmqm.pl>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Michał,

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 04:28:47PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:54:06AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > KX023-1025 [1] is another accelerometer from Kionix that has lots
> > of additional functionality compared to KXCJK-1013. It combines the
> > motion interrupt functionality from KXCJK with the tap detection
> > from KXTF9, plus a lot more other functionality.
> 
> When I researched KXTF9 support it occurred to me that the -10xx part is
> duplicating the information in 'KXyyy' - it seems to be a project number
> or something. I would suggest to use just 'kx023' prefix for the code
> and DT but leave the full identification in the comments/description.
> 

There do seem to be two different KXTF9 from Kionix, a KXTF9-4100 [1]
and a KXTF9-2050 [2] with separate datasheets. Have you checked if there
is a meaningful difference between them?

In any case, I think for KX023 there is only KX023-1025,
so I suppose I can omit it. I used KX023-1025 as name mostly for
consistency, although I did change the convention a bit already since
"kionix,kx0231025" was terribly readable.

So both the current "kionix,kx023-1025" and "kionix,kx023" would be fine
with me, any other opinions?

Thanks!
Stephan

[1]: https://kionixfs.azureedge.net/en/datasheet/KXTF9-4100%20Specifications%20Rev%206.pdf
[2]: https://kionixfs.azureedge.net/en/datasheet/KXTF9-2050%20Specifications%20Rev%207.pdf