On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:01:25 +0300 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes. If there are reasons against, please briefly mention them in commit > > msg. > > I would like to understand the rationale for allowing: > compatible = "rohm,bd71879", "rohm,bd71828". > > Is the intention to: > 1) allow boards which tell the software that "the hardware may be > bd71828 or bd71879", or > 2) to tell a binding reader that these ICs are likely to be usable as > replacements to each others? > (Or, is there some other rationale beyond these?) As far as I understand the second compatible can be a fallback for software which does not know the bd71879 (remember the devicetree is not only for linux). Especially if that software does not use the full functionality of the device, like drivers in bootloaders do. E.g. mmc drivers in bootloaders might not use high speed modes at all, so differences in them do not matter. Regards, Andreas
