On 7/8/24 20:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 01:54:26PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:The BU27034NUC was cancelled before it entered mass production. It was replaced by a new variant BU27034ANUC (note, added 'A'). The new variant gained a few significant changes, like removal of the 3.rd data channel and dropping some of the gain settings. This means that, from software point of view these ICs are incompatible. Lux calculation based on the data from the sensors needs to be done differently, and on the BU27034ANUC the channel 3 data is missing. Also, the gain setting differencies matter. The old sensor should not be out there so the compatible was dropped and a new compatible was added for the bu27034anuc. Move the yaml file so the file name matches the binding and change the $id. Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> --- Revision history: v1 => v2: - New patch --- .../iio/light/{rohm,bu27034.yaml => rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml} | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/{rohm,bu27034.yaml => rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml} (92%) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml similarity index 92% rename from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml rename to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml index 535bd18348ac..fc3d826ed8ba 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2 --- -$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml# +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml# $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#IMO this should be squashed.
I've no objections to squashing this. The main motivation of having it as a separate patch was to point out the file rename for reviewers and ask if it is Ok. Furthermore, if there was a reason not to do the rename, then this patch could've been just dropped while the rest of the series could've been applied.
Thanks for the review! Yours, -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
