Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: magnetometer: add QST QMC6308

[Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:18:00 +0200
Jorijn van der Graaf <jorijnvdgraaf@catcrafts.net> wrote:

> Hi Sirat,
> 
> On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 22:16 +0000, Siratul Islam wrote:
> > > I'd lean towards keeping the separate file.  
> > Wait for more feedback before deciding, since you have a few days
> > before you send v2. DT maintainers usually prefer reusing the same
> > file where possible.  
> 
> Right, my previous email wasn't meant to lock in a decision,
> just my preference. If the DT maintainers want it merged in v2
> I'll happily do that.

DT maintainers may hold a different view but to me it sounds like
the overlap is small enough that the complexity of combining them
may well outweigh the advantages.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> 
> > Register compatibility is driver specific. Bindings are only for
> > describing hardware. So if there are reasons to use separate
> > bindings, this isn't one of them. A fallback-compatible
> > relationship isn't needed, as we are already using an enum to list
> > which different sensors the binding supports.  
> 
> Fair point on both counts; I'll drop that sentence. The lack of
> property overlap is the part that matters here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jorijn