From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 510B9482E2; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:21:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718979698; cv=none; b=DeTXW1UtYbdE+45pAEYlY7vC72uGDxv9l+uvP8QxjKp2ewX/8bTnuLNxURoRxT9KxfPaCeMAHCm8+wFCzxAhBY2ixHw/Nm4UgH5kH3BjJyVgEjHwhrXF55PZ3X+ETezXVdU05q/X4GNovaFkqQuKURU2EFwjEeM9pu0qEJCokLo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718979698; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OQPO5vQZl5riqUdlNrU5QnmW+tWrPynwH15KZnCsdDU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=maZkMXZQCzErOmiZoaxL1UgjhW7tkCrHNJccZWQhWDBOj9LtxbfcbqBu8N8EcBGu/JxxJHxCzkXjW0f8T4nZV79Wxbpn36IVZJipnv1kn2cRiP5+EsMAcnRTA2sBSmpKlSiKWC3Q2egME6OAOltHkpQcomvuG9Wv7NKaBiS5yAk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=R8+r96bF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="R8+r96bF" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3621DC2BBFC; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:21:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1718979697; bh=OQPO5vQZl5riqUdlNrU5QnmW+tWrPynwH15KZnCsdDU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=R8+r96bF44lTTMmJq0L1Z3QwIvfzrQkT+daQyH45XLr7xlXPR6bk1ORkKwJi92SAc xIekqPlx8TBLIWXB4j8Ek3OkqkXn4r9X3KzocDyLxas7/DlwTFcRhxQ0ok+ns2nj9w 0QwFftwFEvQwPepjn18NILQ3ana2bbFbgPC0BXEKIXxJSDvjyrrVKLdPYAon7iscH7 NYLUGxLUoAyX2oG+iPpI2lfuAOD9/GQ24IlrkU7zFD53ukjtzthuq3meOpe2we8fiz 0duHYQ74lalYG0hRmoQ2ywfCTauZQy0xLphP9g5F9jJJXKwLiG6DRoI9uG1yZwNFFD Izj9JOxBpG33Q== Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:21:34 +0100 From: Conor Dooley To: Kaustabh Chakraborty Cc: Jonathan Cameron , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, denis.ciocca@st.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] dt-bindings: iio: st-sensors: add LIS2DS12 accelerometer Message-ID: <20240621-vaporizer-dealt-02a1d8a8d423@spud> References: <20240611160821.13941-1-kauschluss@disroot.org> <20240611160821.13941-2-kauschluss@disroot.org> <20240611-reassign-eliminate-b05e4a302cfb@spud> <56ab50d7c542356b7e377023b84a6018@disroot.org> <20240615144948.61e7f519@jic23-huawei> <157b613ce552e1060e856625d37e927e@disroot.org> <20240618-jockstrap-gains-de25ff6a969b@spud> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EobNpeVPbdRbwVux" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --EobNpeVPbdRbwVux Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 04:42:39PM +0000, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > On 2024-06-18 17:38, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:21:17PM +0000, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > >> On 2024-06-15 13:49, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:46:59 +0000 > >> > Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > >> >=20 > >> >> On 2024-06-11 18:17, Conor Dooley wrote: > >> >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:35:53PM +0530, Kaustabh Chakraborty wr= ote: =20 > >> >> >> Add compatible for LIS2DS12 accelerometer by STMicroelectronics.= =20 > >> >> >=20 > >> >> > I can see that! Your commit message should mention why this device > >> >> > is not compatible with existing variants. =20 > >> >>=20 > >> >> Sure, is adding the WhoAmI value enough? Or do I also have to > >> >> explain the different registers and sensor settings. > >> >>=20 > >> > Who ami is not enough, but a statement along the lines of > >> > "The register interface is not compatible with existing parts, for > >> > example addresses and contents of numerous registers are different" > >> >=20 > >> > With whatever the actual differences are. > >>=20 > >> "LIS2DS12 is an accelerometer by STMicroelectronics. It is identifiabl= e by > >> its WhoAmI value 0x43. > >>=20 > >> Its register interface is not compatible with existing parts. For exam= ple:=20 > >>=20 > >> - The full-scale values are present in register 0x20, in bits 2 and 3 > >> (mask 0x0c). > >>=20 > >> - The full-scale values 2G, 4G, 8G, and 16G correspond to the register > >> values 0x00, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01 respectively. > >>=20 > >> Add the compatible string without any fallback." > >>=20 > >> Is this good enough? > >=20 > > I don't know the other devices, so please highlight how the examples you > > give here are different to the existing ones please. >=20 > Are these acceptable? >=20 > - The full-scale values are present in register 0x20, in bits 2 and 3 > (mask 0x0c). > Most other supported sensors have the register address set to 0x21, > 0x23, 0x24, or 0x25. > There is one sensor setting though (bearing WhoAmI 0x3b) which has > it's address set to 0x20, but the mask is set to 0x20, not 0x0c. >=20 > - The full-scale values 2G, 4G, 8G, and 16G correspond to the register > values 0x00, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01 respectively. > None of the sensor settings have the value 0x01 associated with 16G. Yeah, that sounds good to me. Thanks for the updates. --EobNpeVPbdRbwVux Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZnWMbgAKCRB4tDGHoIJi 0pYVAQDsXaMiTz4nVsnrOb1sLALm92WhmvswS/cTd3J4e7gpUgD/X8jyhJDSLMJZ QrASEU5b0zodsRfS5PEf1SYmTTJUCgA= =VJ9T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EobNpeVPbdRbwVux--