On 13/04/2024 12:34, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 12:23:47PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 13/04/2024 12:18, Lukas Wunner wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 10:10:49AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> I got only one patch, but if these are compatible, why do you need >>>> second patch? Plus binding come before users. >>> >>> Right, the order of the patches needs to be reversed it seems. >> >> What is the second patch? Device is or is not compatible? > > The other patch just adds an entry to of_tis_i2c_match[] in the driver, > pretty unspectacular: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240413071621.12509-2-michael.haener@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > Then why is it needed? To re-iterate: "Device is or is not compatible?" Decide, one of the two patches is wrong. Best regards, Krzysztof
