On 24/09/2024 22:59, Chris Packham wrote: > > On 24/09/24 20:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:57:19AM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: >>> Add the RTL9301, RTL9300B and RTL9303. These have the same SoC as the >>> RTL9302C but differ in the Ethernet switch/SERDES arrangement. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> Notes: >>> Changes in v4: >>> - New >>> >>> .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9302c-switch.yaml | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9302c-switch.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9302c-switch.yaml >>> index 2d20dd07a7e9..a3ba6d9bacaa 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9302c-switch.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9302c-switch.yaml >>> @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ properties: >>> compatible: >>> items: >>> - enum: >>> + - realtek,rtl9301-switch >>> + - realtek,rtl9302b-switch >>> - realtek,rtl9302c-switch >>> + - realtek,rtl9303-switch >> This should be squashed. One logical change is to add a new binding for >> entire family, not device-by-device. > Yes I did consider that. The main thing that gave me pause for thought > was the file naming thing. If I squash this should I switch back to the > realtek,rtl9300-switch filename? I'll probably add the > realtek,rtl9300-switch fallback as well (and add the chip specific > compatibles for the i2c). Splitting this per patch did not solve it - following your logic, file should be renamed. Choose name matching one compatible, e.g. the fallback. Aren't all these devices compatible? Best regards, Krzysztof
