On 06/02/2024 21:41:10+0000, Chris Packham wrote: > > On 7/02/24 10:12, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 06/02/2024 20:19:20+0000, Chris Packham wrote: > >> That is an incredibly good point. The max31335 binding covers one specific chip. This binding covers more and with that there are a few more properties that the max31335 on it's own doesn't have (e.g. the clock consumer, the ability to have different i2c addresses). Binding wise I could probably roll all of the max31335 into this max313xx binding. > >> > >> Driver wise things are a bit trickier. I've only got access to one of > >> the variants so I am hoping to leverage the work Ibrahim had already > >> done. I could attempt to incorporate max31335 support into the > >> max313xx driver but I wouldn't really be able to test it properly and > >> there is a reasonably high chance of regressing something. > > But I won't take a separate driver. Everything would be better if Analog > > was sharing the datasheets... > > The datasheets are pretty accessible so I'd give Analog a pass on that > (they're certainly better than some vendors). I'll include some links on > the next update. > The max31335 is not available > I'll attempt to roll the max31335 into the max313xx driver. I guess this would be the opposite. Renaming a driver breaks existing kernel configurations. -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
