On 30/10/2024 13:14, Nemanov, Michael wrote: > On 10/30/2024 1:09 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 30/10/2024 11:59, Nemanov, Michael wrote: >>>> >>>> Your changelog does not explain these three. "Fixed compatibility" is >>>> way too vague, especially that you do not fix anything here. >>>> >>> >>> I was trying to address the feedback from previous patch. You said: >>> >>>>>>> +static const struct of_device_id cc33xx_sdio_of_match_table[] = { >>>>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,cc3300", .data = &cc33xx_data }, >>>>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,cc3301", .data = &cc33xx_data }, >>>>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,cc3350", .data = &cc33xx_data }, >>>>>>> + { .compatible = "ti,cc3351", .data = &cc33xx_data }, >>>>>>> + { } >>>>>>> +}; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Eh? What happened here? So devices are compatibles thus make them >>>>>> compatible in the bindings. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I thought this is the right way to do it (originally taken from [1]). >>>>> How can I solve it via DT bindings? >>>> >>>> It's all over the bindings (also example-schema). Use fallback and oneOf. >>>> >>> >>> Looking at [2] and [3] as an example I tried to do the same (make cc33xx >>> driver compatible with all chip variants). >>> How should have I done it? >> >> qcom-wdt is quite a different device. It's true you should have here >> oneOf, but for a purpose. oneOf without purpose does not make sense, right? >> >> I think other TI bindings would serve you as an example. Or this one: >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc6/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/nvidia,tegra210-ope.yaml#L31 >> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > OK. > So I should make one of the variants the base and declare others as > compatible? i.e: > Yes Best regards, Krzysztof