Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: dt-bindings: Unify compatible

[Neha Malcom Francis]

Hi Rob

On 08/05/24 02:41, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:51:54PM +0530, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
> > TPS62870/1/2/3 devices have different output currents (6A/9A/12A/15A) of
> > the TPS6287x family. The I2C addresses are the same between them. There
> > is no need for different compatibles for each for these devices so drop
> > them and add a unified "ti,tps6287x" compatible.
>
> And s/w will never need to know what the max output current is?

Not really, as per understanding from the hardware teams.

> Same i2c address has no bearing. That's usually not even fixed for 1
> device.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,tps62870.yaml         | 7 ++-----
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,tps62870.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,tps62870.yaml
> > index 386989544dac..2998773db990 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,tps62870.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/ti,tps62870.yaml
> > @@ -15,10 +15,7 @@ allOf:
> >   properties:
> >     compatible:
> >       enum:
> > -      - ti,tps62870
> > -      - ti,tps62871
> > -      - ti,tps62872
> > -      - ti,tps62873
> > +      - ti,tps6287x
>
> You just broke the existing users.
>
> Wildcards in compatible names are generally discouraged. Maybe if this
> was a new binding and had sufficient justification why we don't need to
> distinguish parts, but this is an ABI and we're stuck with them.
>
> If you are doing this to support more versions, then feel free to use
> an existing string. It's just a unique identifier. You have 4 to choose
> from.

Thanks for the review, Rob! I should have known better than to remove 
compatibles, excuse the noise!

> Rob

--
Thanking You
Neha Malcom Francis