Hi Conor, > > > > +properties: > > > > + compatible: > > > > + oneOf: > > > > + - items: > > > > + - enum: > > > > + - sophgo,cv1800b-saradc > > > > + - const: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc > > > > > > I don't think the fallback here makes sense. If there's other devices > > > with a compatible programming model added later, we can fall back to the > > > cv1800b. I'm sorry but isn't this slightly disagreeing with the "writing bindings" doc pointed in v1? It says, * DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a subset of prior implementations. I believe we fall in the "devices are the same" category, so I would have myself wrote a similar binding here with a compatible matching them all, plus a hardware-implementation-specific compatible as well; just in case. Thanks, Miquèl
