Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] dt-bindings: iio: adc: mt6359: generalize description for mt63xx series

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 12 May 2026 13:55:26 +0000
Roman Vivchar <rva333@protonmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 12th, 2026 at 4:13 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:18:15 +0300
> > Roman Vivchar via B4 Relay <devnull+rva333.protonmail.com@kernel.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > From: Roman Vivchar <rva333@protonmail.com>
> > >
> > > Update binding title to the MT63xx, since the list of compatibles already
> > > includes mt6363 and mt6373 which don't belong to the mt6350 family.  
> > Hi Roman,
> > 
> > Wild cards have a nasty habit of going wrong.  I'd prefer to see
> > language like: MT6359 and similar PMIC AUXADC  
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> I agree that it would be better to specify the exact PMIC models, however
> 'similar' wording might be a bit misleading here. As far as I know,
> the mt6363 and mt6373 use SPMI, while mt635x (and older models, like
> most of the mt63xx series) use PWRAP (a custom SPI-based protocol).
> The mt6323 has an older AUXADC revision which is not compatible
> with the mt635x driver.
> 
> Would you prefer more explicit list like 'MT6323, MT6350 series, MT6363
> and MT6373 PMIC AUXADC'? It's a bit mess because some mt63xx
> (like mt6333) are sub-PMICs and use I2C instead of PWRAP.
Complete lists don't work because sooner or later they become too long
for a title (though they should be there elsewhere in the dt-binding!)

Perhaps something around: mt6359 and similar SoC ADCs including those accessed via ....
 
> 
> > It is less important here than in many other places because the
> > file has an explicit list soon after this, but none the less
> > we've been bitten by this too often to think manufacturers won't
> > throw a completely non compatible part in the middle of a wild
> > card covered range.
> >   
> 
> Best regards,
> Roman