On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:31:13PM +0000, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > On 2024-06-26 16:06, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:21:06PM +0530, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: > >> Add the compatible string of stk3013 to the existing list. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kaustabh Chakraborty <kauschluss@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/stk33xx.yaml | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/stk33xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/stk33xx.yaml > >> index f6e22dc9814a..6003da66a7e6 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/stk33xx.yaml > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/stk33xx.yaml > >> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ allOf: > >> properties: > >> compatible: > >> enum: > >> + - sensortek,stk3013 > > > > The driver change suggests that this device is compatible with the > > existing sensors. > > Jonathan, could we relax the warning during init > > What does 'relax' mean here? Earlier there used to be a probing error, > and now it's just a warning. Is that not relaxed enough? If it is something intentionally, I don't think a warning is suitable. It makes the user thing something is wrong. > > > ret = stk3310_check_chip_id(chipid); > > if (ret < 0) > > dev_warn(&client->dev, "unknown chip id: 0x%x\n", chipid); > > and allow fallback compatibles here please? > > So, you mean something like this in devicetree? > > compatible = "sensortek,stk3013", "sensortek,stk3310"; > > I mean that's fine, but we also need to change devicetree sources for > other devices. If that's what we're doing, please let me know how do > I frame the commits. Why would you need to change the dts for other devices to add a fallback for this new compatible that is being added? > >> - sensortek,stk3310 > >> - sensortek,stk3311 > >> - sensortek,stk3335 > >> -- > >> 2.45.2 > >> > > Thank you.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
