From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.163.com (m16.mail.163.com [220.197.31.2]) (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 D761F2727ED; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 06:11:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.2 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763619111; cv=none; b=VU0iNA96MRcUWsssJTnuH0L2n59H3Et5bxh7cVQrNvyQu/HKzDtHNS4qaFnVyqQI6ZiCN3GLdapm/TW2AckOV1swcSId3rug0hRKP3ty+E4gCg2vxlkjvRzsxPhkwCtpxp7ZQZCA5dc/fzJ8ES3BIPwCKechm1gR2p6wNorltNo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763619111; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FGWFkdPYYzdHSb2lKHDtfUbyVPVahp0RsoYg5BuzjqE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References; b=L5LhaOAGoJKvB54mGpfraDa4HEh1Sfkbgkm2X9feLYot6TVnSUzTK0VNer7LbSlqacuaL76UQ687ahvx2hkUD4VV8pUhY2xZUg+dC7fXtlR3OmYmvhz5Dwr9uBfWmZolFTSZTnkGErwqzTaGqlFpRr9bAgSpc3qTSamFeWwoEm4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b=UGTBIufp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.2 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="UGTBIufp" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id; bh=RZXjnAXMxAR80y5 LKejzGO3brtx1NbXpAEkaTA/2rv4=; b=UGTBIufpWEWgxXsH38Lf7Q7+Eqb2DLx NSYm5JJV7mkEdM+Fp1zOT3yoyLwa2nYxph1X8V+3Se//RG7MQW7JttQKYL3XYpRi piSzT7z+Ab6GJuLNsU7KM4i7wtGJMxWFtimKdA33PMC30H/7M9dtuRgLQm+R5BkE DIapE9Q2rne4= Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown []) by gzsmtp5 (Coremail) with SMTP id QCgvCgD35XLhsB5puNGOEg--.3505S2; Thu, 20 Nov 2025 14:10:43 +0800 (CST) From: Wenliang Yan To: krzk@kernel.org Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jdelvare@suse.com, krzk+dt@kernel.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@roeck-us.net, robh@kernel.org, wenliang202407@163.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: hwmon: ti,ina3221: Add SQ52210 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 01:10:37 -0500 Message-Id: <20251120061037.112097-1-wenliang202407@163.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: References: X-CM-TRANSID:QCgvCgD35XLhsB5puNGOEg--.3505S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoW7WFWfurWfXFyUGw47Gr47CFg_yoW8XF1kpa yUGFyqk3Z3Ar1fZr4Iya1FvFWYvan3Jr98Wrn8K3WrZw4qkFyFqF48Ka1ruF909r1fur4S vF40q3sFgrsrZFJanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x0JjTc_fUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: xzhqzxhdqjjiisuqlqqrwthudrp/1tbiGQgM02keqWO3swAAs3 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: At 2025-11-19 17:17:18, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" wrote: >On 19/11/2025 10:06, Wenliang Yan wrote: >> At 2025-11-19 15:22:38, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:51:41AM -0500, Wenliang Yan wrote: >>>> Add a compatible string for sq52210. The sq52210 is forward compatible >>> >>> forward? >>> >>>> with INA3221 and incorporates alert registers to implement four >>> >>> But this suggests opposite. >>> >>> Your driver changes confirm that even more - it is not forward >>> compatible. And in other way why wouldn't compatibility be expressed in >>> the bindings? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >> >> Perhaps my use of "forward" was inaccurate. I only meant to express that >> at the hardware level, the SQ52210 contains all the registers and >> functions of the INA3221, and builds upon them by adding current, power, >> and alert registers. However, these additional registers don't require >> adding more specific properties in the binding file. >> Are you suggesting that I'm missing the description of SQ52210's >> characteristics in the documentation? > >This is backwards compatibility and if that's the case - driver can bind >via old compatible and work correctly with previous functionality - why >not expressing it in the bindings as compatible devices? See writing >bindings. > >Best regards, >Krzysztof Okay, I will use oneOf to express the compatibility relationship in the v3 version. Thanks, Wenlaing Yan