On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 09:56:36AM +0000, Hardevsinh Palaniya wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 11:43:16AM +0530, Hardevsinh Palaniya wrote: ... > > > Add Support for OPT3004 Digital ambient light sensor (ALS) with > > > increased angular IR rejection > > > > Missing period here. > > > The OPT3004 sensor shares the same functionality and scale range as > > > the OPT3001. This Adds the compatible string for OPT3004, enabling > > > the driver to support it without any functional changes. > > > > > > Datasheet: https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/opt3004 > > > > > > > > > This blank line is not needed. You left two above comments unanswered while Acking the rest, it's a bit confusing. Are you agree on them or not? ... > > > static const struct of_device_id opt3001_of_match[] = { > > > { .compatible = "ti,opt3001", .data = &opt3001_chip_information }, > > > { .compatible = "ti,opt3002", .data = &opt3002_chip_information }, > > > + { .compatible = "ti,opt3004", .data = &opt3001_chip_information }, > > > { } > > > }; > > > > I'm always puzzled why do we need a new compatible for the existing driver > > data? Is this hardware has an additional feature that driver does not (yet) > > implement? > > OPT3001 and OPT3004 sensors are functionally identical, and there are no > additional features in the OPT3004 that require separate handling in the driver. > > The new compatible string for the OPT3004 is being added, which will allow the > driver to recognize and support this sensor in the same way it handles the OPT3001. But why? I understand if you put two compatible strings into the DT to make it explicit in case of the future developments of the driver, but new compatible in the driver makes only sense when you have either quirk(s) or feature(s) that are different to the existing code. Since you haven't added either, what's the point? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
