Hi Conor, On 24-02-21, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:16:44PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > On 24-02-21, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 06:58:10PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > > Add the iis2mdc magnetometer support which is equivalent to the lis2mdl. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/st,st-sensors.yaml | 1 + > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/st,st-sensors.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/st,st-sensors.yaml > > > > index fff7e3d83a02..ee593c8bbb65 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/st,st-sensors.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/st,st-sensors.yaml > > > > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ properties: > > > > - st,lsm9ds0-gyro > > > > - description: STMicroelectronics Magnetometers > > > > enum: > > > > + - st,iis2mdc > > > > > > Without a fallback compatible to the equivilent device, how does a > > > driver bind to this device? > > > > I skimed the datasheets and the driver already handles this binding > > exactly the same as the st,lis2mdl, so my assumption is they do match. > > > > Why do I you think we need a fallback compatible here? > > I didn't look at the driver, there was no mention of the driver already > having (undocumented) support for it. Since there was no driver change > alongside this patch, I thought you'd need a fallback compatible to > allow the driver to match against a compatible it recognises. I explicitly did not mention the driver in the commit message else I would have got a response like "dt-bindings have no dependency to drivers" ;) > Besides, having fallback compatibles is the norm when one device has the > same programming model as another. Not for this binding according the driver. Regards, Marco > > > Cheers, > Conor. >
