quoted

quoted

Been there, got bitten. We only found out too late, because one driver
was in i2c and the other in GPIO (or LED even?), both using "953x" :(

That seems like a development, review and/or merge process failure to me, I
wouldn't avoid generic compatible strings for that reason only.

Well, I think different here, but let's skip this discussion as it is
not really needed right now...

quoted

As the ADXL346 is backward-compatible with the ADXL345, and as the driver
doesn't support the ADXL346-specific features, how about adding only the
adxl345 for now, and using compatible = "adi,adxl346", "adi,adxl345"; for
the ADXL346 ?

I spoke too fast. The driver supports ADXL346-specific features, but does so 
by detecting the device model at runtime.

I still believe it would make sense to list both the 346 and 345 models in DT 
for 346 devices, as they're compatible with the 345.

I agree.

quoted

quoted

2) also add "34x" as a compatible but mark it as deprecateed
3) delete "34x" from trivial devices

OK.

Yay :)