On 24-02-07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/02/2024 10:05, Marco Felsch wrote: > > On 24-02-06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 06/02/2024 15:52, Marco Felsch wrote: > >>> On 24-02-06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 05/02/2024 17:43, Marco Felsch wrote: > >>>>> This binding descripes the generic TCPCI specification [1]. So add the ... > > Don't get me wrong, I get your point. In the end I don't care and can > > copy'n'paste the whole file and change the compatible to the OnSemi > > device or I can add the dedicated OnSemi compatible to this file. But I > > don't wanted to add an 2nd specific compatible while the device already > > supports the generic one but via i2c_device_id.name. Therefore I aligned > > the i2c_device_id with the of_device_id. > > You can add generic compatible used as fallback. That's pretty common > practice. Okay. To bring this discussion to an end, I will add the generic compatible as fallback :) Thanks, Marco > > > > >>>> Are all details expected to follow spec, without need of quirks? > >>> > >>> Please see above, I hope this helps. > >> > >> Sorry, doesn't. You still speak about driver and how it can bind to > >> something. I did not ask about this at all. > >> > >> To be clear: > >> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LINUX DRIVER. > > > > I KNOW > > > >> We talk about hardware and how it is represented in Devicetree, > >> including its supplies, pins, GPIOs and any ideas hardware engineers > >> like to bring. > > Then terms "driver" and "binding" (or matching) do not fit here as > arguments whether specific compatible should be there or not. There is > guideline for that: writing bindings, which exactly, 100% covers this > thing here. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
