On 28/12/2023 08:58, ChiYuan Huang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 08:09:35AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/12/2023 04:19, ChiYuan Huang wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 01:12:50PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 26/12/2023 12:19, ChiYuan Huang wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:18:47AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 26/12/2023 04:47, cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>>>> From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Add compatible support for RTQ6053 and RTQ6059. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/richtek,rtq6056.yaml | 5 ++++- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/richtek,rtq6056.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/richtek,rtq6056.yaml >>>>>>> index 88e008629ea8..d1e1f36d1972 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/richtek,rtq6056.yaml >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/richtek,rtq6056.yaml >>>>>>> @@ -25,7 +25,10 @@ description: | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> properties: >>>>>>> compatible: >>>>>>> - const: richtek,rtq6056 >>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>> + - richtek,rtq6053 >>>>>>> + - richtek,rtq6056 >>>>>> >>>>>> Aren't these devices compatible? Your driver change says they are, so >>>>>> express compatibility with list here (and oneOf). >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks, I try to take other binding as the reference. One more question. >>>>> If rtq6053 is compatible with rtq6056, there's only chip package type difference. >>>>> Do I need to seperate it into a dedicated enum element? >>>>> Or just put it into one item and said this part number is compatible with rtq6056? >>>> >>>> See example-schema. You need enum and items, both in oneOf:. >>>> >>> After reading the 'example-schema', I Still cannot understand what the special case items >>> means. >> >> What is "special case items"? >> > I may misunderstand something. The special case is the 'fallback' that you mentaioned in > the last. >>> >>> But in my case, is the below change correct? >>> [Diff] >>> properties: >>> compatible: >>> - enum: >>> - - richtek,rtq6053 >>> - - richtek,rtq6056 >>> - - richtek,rtq6059 >>> + oneOf: >>> + - items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - richtek,rtq6053 >>> + - richtek,rtq6056 >>> + - richtek,rtq6059 >> >> This changes nothing, you still have just one item. The example-schema >> has exactly that case, so why you are coding it differently? >> >> Anyway, test your DTS with the fallback, you will see that above does >> not work. >> > I rewrite the below one and tested. it seems correct. > > [Diff] > compatible: > - enum: > - - richtek,rtq6053 > - - richtek,rtq6056 > - - richtek,rtq6059 > + oneOf: > + - enum: > + - richtek,rtq6053 > + - richtek,rtq6059 > + - items: > + - const: richtek,rtq6056 You still need two items here to express compatibility. What is compatible with what? It must be rtq6053 compatible with rtq6056, because you cannot break the ABI, can you? > > Just one more question. If rtq6053 is fully compatibie with rtq6056, does it need to be put > into oneOf enum or be just put into items enum and use the 'fallback' mechanism? The fallback is just a term. The point is to have a list of two compatibles. See: Devicetree specification, writing-bindings and numerous presentations about writing DTS. > > If so, the 'richtek,rtq6053' in of_device_id match can be removed. Though it just remove > one line, but less-changed would be better. The device using fallback should be removed the driver of_device_id, so 6053 goes away. Best regards, Krzysztof
