On 19/08/2025 10:26, Mike Looijmans wrote:
> On 19-08-2025 09:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 19/08/2025 09:46, Mike Looijmans wrote:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + enum:
>>>>> + - ti,tmds181
>>>>> + - ti,sn65dp159
>>>> The driver contains:
>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,tmds181", },
>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,sn65dp159", },
>>>> + {}
>>>> so why is a fallback compatible not suitable here?
>>> I don't understand the question. The two are slightly different chips,
>> Your driver says they are compatible. No one said the same, but compatible.
>>
>>> so it makes sense to describe that in the DT.
>> Compatible devices should use fallback. There is plenty of examples (90%
>> of all binding files?) including example-schema describing this.
>
> Please help me out here, I'm happy to oblige, but I don't understand
> what you're asking.
>
> To the best of my knowledge "fallback" compatible is when you write
> something like this in the device-tree:
> compatible = "st,m25p80", "jedec,spi-nor";
> Which means that we can use the "jedec,spi-nor" driver if there's no
> specific match for "st,m25p80", correct?
Yes.
>
> I don't understand how that relates to your request, this is the first
> time I ever got this particular feedback. Looking at say the
> ti,sn65dsi83 driver, it does the same thing (supports the ti,sn65dsi83
> and ti,sn65dsi84).
>
> Please explain or point me somewhere where I can find this?
I already pointed out to example-schema.
Also, e.g. first file in iio/adc:
adi,ad4000.yaml
Best regards,
Krzysztof
