On Sat, 04 May 2024 01:45:25 +0200 Barnabás Czémán <trabarni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Danila Tikhonov <danila@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Document bosch,bmi120 compatible. > > Signed-off-by: Danila Tikhonov <danila@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Barnbás Czémán <trabarni@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/bosch,bmi160.yaml | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/bosch,bmi160.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/bosch,bmi160.yaml > index 47cfba939ca6..9ca874aea837 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/bosch,bmi160.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/imu/bosch,bmi160.yaml > @@ -16,7 +16,9 @@ description: | > > properties: > compatible: > - const: bosch,bmi160 > + enum: > + - bosch,bmi120 > + - bosch,bmi160 Please use a fallback compatible for the bmi120 similar to handling done for st,asm330lhhx in st,lsm6dsx.yaml Whilst the driver would currently reject the chip ID, the binding should assume the driver does fallback handling correctly. Jonathan > > reg: > maxItems: 1 >
