On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 17:02 +0700, Chanh Nguyen wrote: > > On 17/10/2024 07:08, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Please be mindful of safe email handling and proprietary information protection practices.] > > > > > > Hi Chanh, > > > > On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 17:26 +0700, Chanh Nguyen wrote: > > > > > > On 16/10/2024 12:07, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > > You can also find discussions where other maintainers (Guenter, hwmon > > > > maintainer; Krzysztof, devicetree maintainer) have asked that "pmbus" > > > > not be used as a compatible: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/f76798ea-6edd-4888-8057-c09aaed88f25@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > I checked the discussion at > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/f76798ea-6edd-4888-8057-c09aaed88f25@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > . It seems the maintainers don't want to use the "pmbus" compatible for > > > specific devices. The maintaners require an explicitly compatible from > > > device list in drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.c . > > > > > > > There are two problems: > > > > 1. Describing your _hardware_ (not drivers) in the devicetree > > 2. Binding a driver to your device > > > > You ultimately care about both 1 and 2 as you want Linux to do > > something useful with the device, but for the purpose of this patch > > adding the devicetree, 1 is what matters and 2 is not really a part of > > the considerations. > > > > What needs to be the case is that the devicetree describes the device > > via an appropriate compatible string for the device (manufacturer and > > part number). Prior to that, the compatible string for the device needs > > to be documented in a devicetree binding. This may be the trivial- > > devices binding if there are no extra properties that need to be > > described, or you may need to write your own binding document for the > > device if it's more complex and one doesn't yet exist. > > > > So whatever is in pmbus.c needs to be fixed later on if your device is > > not yet supported by it, but that's a separate problem (2) to the > > problem you have here (1). > > > > Who is the manufacturer and what is the part number? > > > > > > Andrew > > Thank Andrew for your explanation! I'm so happy to receive comments from > you. > > I'll remove the PSU node with "pmbus" compatible in the patch v2. We'll > discuss more to have a suitable PSU node later. > > I'm preparing the patch v2. Summary, I need to update as the below list. > 1. Add Mt. Jefferson board compatible binding as Krzysztof pointed. > 2. Remove the PSU node with "pmbus" compatible. Sounds good. Thanks. > > If you have any other comments on patch v1 please don't hesitate to > point out; I'll update that in patch v2. I had one query on v1. Andrew
