Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc.yaml: Add Sophgo SARADC binding documentation

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Bonnefille <thomas.bonnefille@bootlin.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@outlook.com>,
	Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: iio: adc: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc.yaml: Add Sophgo SARADC binding documentation
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:23:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240708142344.47da466e@xps-13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <304b7bb1-d315-4147-820b-1ec0aa63e759@kernel.org>

Hi Krzysztof,

krzk@kernel.org wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:33:04 +0200:

> On 08/07/2024 08:30, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Conor,
> >   
> >>>>> +properties:
> >>>>> +  compatible:
> >>>>> +    oneOf:
> >>>>> +      - items:
> >>>>> +          - enum:
> >>>>> +              - sophgo,cv1800b-saradc
> >>>>> +          - const: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc    
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think the fallback here makes sense. If there's other devices
> >>>> with a compatible programming model added later, we can fall back to the
> >>>> cv1800b.  
> > 
> > I'm sorry but isn't this slightly disagreeing with the "writing
> > bindings" doc pointed in v1? It says,
> > 
> > * DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a subset
> >   of prior implementations.
> > 
> > I believe we fall in the "devices are the same" category, so I would
> > have myself wrote a similar binding here with a compatible matching
> > them all, plus a hardware-implementation-specific compatible as well;
> > just in case.  
> 
> Fallback from one model to another. There is no "another" model here,
> but wildcard. There is no such device as cv18xx, right?

No there is not. But I don't think there is a "base" model either.
Just multiple SoCs named cv18<something> with apparently the same ADC.

So actually I guess the discussion here is about the wildcard
compatible. It feels strange to me to have no generic compatible either
with a wildcard or with a "base" implementation (because there is
probably none). So I guess the solution here is to just list a single
specific compatible in the end.

Thanks,
Miquèl

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv