On 10/03/2025 09:04, Matthias Fend wrote:
>>> +
>>> +static void tps6131x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>>> +{
>>> + struct tps6131x *tps6131x = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>>> +
>>> + v4l2_flash_release(tps6131x->v4l2_flash);
>>> +
>>> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&tps6131x->torch_refresh_work);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id of_tps6131x_leds_match[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "ti,tps61310" },
>>> + { .compatible = "ti,tps61311" },
>>
>>
>> No differences? So devices are fully compatible? Then it should be
>> expressed in the binding with fallback. Or the binding description or
>> commit msg should explain why they are not compatible.
>
> Yes, from a software perspective both are identical.
> The only difference I found between the two variants are different
> valley current limits. These are described in the bindings.
So use compatibility and fallbacks (see example-schema or hundreds of
other bindings).
Best regards,
Krzysztof
