From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dt-bindings: maxbotix,i2cxl: Add MaxBotix i2c ultrasonic rangers Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:39:30 -0500 Message-ID: <20190312163930.GA30288@bogus> References: <20190301134225.susjgtck4iktkbeg@arbad> <20190302182639.48e73885@archlinux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190302182639.48e73885@archlinux> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Andreas Klinger , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, afaerber@suse.de, arnd@arndb.de, davem@davemloft.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, johan@kernel.org, khilman@baylibre.com, knaack.h@gmx.de, lars@metafoo.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com, mchehab+samsung@kernel.org, m.othacehe@gmail.com, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, pmeerw@pmeerw.net, songqiang1304521@gmail.com, treding@nvidia.com, techsupport@maxbotix.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 06:26:39PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:42:27 +0100 > Andreas Klinger wrote: > > > Add doc for dt binding maxbotix,i2cxl. This binding is for MaxBotix > > I2CXL-MaxSonar ultrasonic rangers which share a common i2c interface. > > I'm a bit confused on the naming. Certainly the binding should have > separate entries for each supported part, rather than a group one > for their i2cxl naming. Having said that they do have a wide > range of parts with only the one datasheet. > > Rob, what do you think? Go with this i2cxl naming > or list the individual supported parts? Looks like the difference is mainly just the range. Is that something s/w needs to know about? > > mb1202, mb1212, mb1222, mb1232, mb1242, mb7040, > mb7137? OTOH, that's not really too many. Rob