On Tue, 11 May 2021 16:50:51 +0200
Michał Mirosław [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 04:38:06PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:

quoted

Hi Michał,

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 04:28:47PM +0200, Michał Mirosław wrote:  

quoted

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:54:06AM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:  

quoted

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?  

I haven't compared them thoroughly, but the versions seem to differ only
in power consumption (maybe a different manufacturing process?). The
register sets seem the same.

Differ in expected Vdd supply voltage. 3.3 vs 1.8V .  Looks like this has
knock on effects on things like self test values.  So I'd argue it's worth keeping
the distinction for device tree. 

We could do a double compatible

compatible = kionix,kx023-1024, konix,kx023;

but may be too late to do that now.

Jonathan

Best Regards
Michał Mirosław