Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc.yaml: Add Sophgo SARADC binding documentation

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Bonnefille <thomas.bonnefille@bootlin.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@outlook.com>,
	Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc.yaml: Add Sophgo SARADC binding documentation
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 08:30:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240708083011.058d0c57@xps-13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240706-remote-undergo-3b9dfe44d16f@spud>

Hi Conor,

> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    oneOf:
> > > > +      - items:
> > > > +          - enum:
> > > > +              - sophgo,cv1800b-saradc
> > > > +          - const: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc  
> > > 
> > > I don't think the fallback here makes sense. If there's other devices
> > > with a compatible programming model added later, we can fall back to the
> > > cv1800b.

I'm sorry but isn't this slightly disagreeing with the "writing
bindings" doc pointed in v1? It says,

* DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a subset
  of prior implementations.

I believe we fall in the "devices are the same" category, so I would
have myself wrote a similar binding here with a compatible matching
them all, plus a hardware-implementation-specific compatible as well;
just in case.

Thanks,
Miquèl