On 08/07/2024 08:30, Miquel Raynal wrote: > 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. Fallback from one model to another. There is no "another" model here, but wildcard. There is no such device as cv18xx, right? Best regards, Krzysztof
