On 27/08/2024 15:18, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > The MAX96712 and MAX96724 are almost identical and can be supported by > the same driver, add a compatible for MAX96724. The driver statement in this context is meaningless. You did not make them compatible so what does it matter? > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > * Changes since v1 > - Group in series together with driver change. > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max96712.yaml | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max96712.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max96712.yaml > index 6c72e77b927c..26f85151afbd 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max96712.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/maxim,max96712.yaml > @@ -25,7 +25,10 @@ description: | > > properties: > compatible: > - const: maxim,max96712 > + items: > + - enum: > + - maxim,max96712 > + - maxim,max96724 Driver change tells these are compatible and version is detectable. Express it in the binding with fallback or explain in commit msg why they are not compatible. Best regards, Krzysztof
