Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tmp102: Add TMP110 and TMP113 devices

[Flaviu Nistor <flaviu.nistor@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2025 at 19:12:26 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 08:55:39AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 9/15/25 10:18, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 08:08:18PM +0300, Flaviu Nistor wrote:
>> > > Add a compatible string for TMP110 and TMP113 devices.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Flaviu Nistor <flaviu.nistor@gmail.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml | 2 ++
>> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> > > 
>> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml
>> > > index 96b2e4969f78..840b5306a8cf 100644
>> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml
>> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml
>> > > @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ properties:
>> > >     compatible:
>> > >       enum:
>> > >         - ti,tmp102
>> > > +      - ti,tmp110
>> > > +      - ti,tmp113
>> > 
>> > The driver has no match data and no compatible based decisions added in
>> > your patch. Why is a fallback to tmp102 not suitable?
>> > 
>> 
>> That should work for tmp110. However, tmp113 does have additional registers, and it
>> might be desirable to report the content of those using debugfs. Fallback for that chip
>> would work for now, but that might have to change later if support for the additional
>> registers is added to the driver.
>
>In that case, only the driver would need to change not the binding.
>That's fine though, of course.
>

I am a little confused and I would appreciate some advice if I should leave
the series as it is or send a v2 only for documentation and Kconfig updates,
droping the binding update?

>> 
>> Guenter
>> 
>> > >     interrupts:
>> > >       maxItems: 1
>> > > -- 
>> > > 2.43.0
>> > > 
>>