Hi Krzysztof, krzk@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:33:04 +0200: > On 08/07/2024 08:30, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Conor, > > > >>>>> +properties: > >>>>> + compatible: > >>>>> + oneOf: > >>>>> + - items: > >>>>> + - enum: > >>>>> + - sophgo,cv1800b-saradc > >>>>> + - const: sophgo,cv18xx-saradc > >>>> > >>>> I don't think the fallback here makes sense. If there's other devices > >>>> with a compatible programming model added later, we can fall back to the > >>>> cv1800b. > > > > I'm sorry but isn't this slightly disagreeing with the "writing > > bindings" doc pointed in v1? It says, > > > > * DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a subset > > of prior implementations. > > > > I believe we fall in the "devices are the same" category, so I would > > have myself wrote a similar binding here with a compatible matching > > them all, plus a hardware-implementation-specific compatible as well; > > just in case. > > Fallback from one model to another. There is no "another" model here, > but wildcard. There is no such device as cv18xx, right? No there is not. But I don't think there is a "base" model either. Just multiple SoCs named cv18<something> with apparently the same ADC. So actually I guess the discussion here is about the wildcard compatible. It feels strange to me to have no generic compatible either with a wildcard or with a "base" implementation (because there is probably none). So I guess the solution here is to just list a single specific compatible in the end. Thanks, Miquèl
