Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: iio: flow: add Sensirion SLF3S liquid flow sensor

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/06/2026 11:03, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 16:29:10 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/06/2026 16:09, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 13:53:23 +0200
>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 10:54:31PM +0200, Wadim Mueller wrote:  
>>>>> Document the bindings for the Sensirion SLF3S family of digital
>>>>> liquid-flow sensors on I2C.  The family currently covers the
>>>>> SLF3S-0600F, SLF3S-1300F and SLF3S-4000B variants.
>>>>>
>>>>> The driver auto-detects the variant from the product-information
>>>>> register at probe time; the per-variant compatible strings exist
>>>>> for documentation and dt_binding_check purposes.    
>>>>
>>>> Here...
>>>>  
>>>>> +description:
>>>>> +  Family of digital liquid-flow sensors from Sensirion with I2C
>>>>> +  interface.  All family members share the same register map; sub-types
>>>>> +  differ only in the flow scale factor and the calibrated measurement
>>>>> +  range, both of which are detected at probe time via the
>>>>> +  product-information register.    
>>>>
>>>> And here...
>>>>  
>>>>> +
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>> +      - sensirion,slf3s-0600f
>>>>> +      - sensirion,slf3s-1300f
>>>>> +      - sensirion,slf3s-4000b    
>>>>
>>>> And here something else. Confusing. Didn't you say device variants are
>>>> auto-detectable? So you have only one compatible sensirion,slf3s.  
>>>
>>> And then future fallback compatibles can never work. 
>>> Basically as far as I have ever been able to establish this is why
>>> generic compatibles are almost always the wrong way to go.
>>>
>>> If we get a future part with an unknown ID and don't have these existing
>>> specific compatibles, then we have no way to specify which one it is  
>>
>> But why would you have future part with unknown ID?
> 
> That's what manufacturers do on a very frequent basis.  They tweak something
> that has no affect on the interface or channel scaling etc and release a new part
> with a different ID.  Can be something like a part suited to different operating
> conditions, or with a different supply tolerance.

and it will have a different, known that time ID. How could be "unknown"?

> 
>>
>> The device is slf3s with variants. All of known variants have an
>> interface to detect the actual variant. There is no indication that this
>> won't work - why would company remove the ID register?
> 
> They won't remove the ID, but they will put other values in it to
> indicate new revisions of a part - often entirely backwards compatible
> - sometimes with extra features that we don't use until the driver is updated.
> 
> 
>>
>> But even if this happens, then it would be change of device interface,
>> thus you cannot use generic compatible and you will have a new dedicated
>> compatible.
> 
> We've had this discussion a number of times for whether an ID register difference
> alone makes a device non compatible, and the answer from DT review has always been
> a firm no and that it is incorrect to reject an unknown ID if the dt-compatible

True, but this is not the case here. That incompatible device would
simply not use this compatible, thus it will not start the probe.


> is known.  The compromise that people were happy with was an info print if
> such a mismatch is detected as it might indicate an incompatible part replacement
> and a broken DT.
> 
> Probably 80%+ of IIO bindings with fallback compatibles do not have
> matching "who am I" register values.  This is incredibly common.
> 
>>
>> If the device is actually "slf3s-0600f" (because slf3s is a family),
>> then I am fine with using that as the fallback. Specific front
>> compatibles are also fine in such case.
> 
> Yes, it's a part in the family. Each of the compatibles here has a
> separate datasheet:
> 
> https://sensirion.com/media/documents/C4F8D965/66F56F53/LQ_DS_SLF3S-0600F_Datasheet.pdf
> https://sensirion.com/media/documents/6971528D/63625D22/Sensirion_Datasheet_SLF3S-1300F.pdf
> etc
> 
> (wonderfully inconsistent file naming ;)
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>> compatible with.  Given these are providing scaling info that means we
>>> can't realistically support such a future part with a fallback at all.
>>>
>>> That would only be possible if there was feature level discovery. A single
>>> whoami register with no structure to the value is useless for this.  
>>
>> The whoami register defines all the features, no? What would feature
>> discovery improve? ID register is simply logical OR of some feature set,
>> still uniquely identifying the features set/variant.
> 
> Would be lovely if true. Sadly almost never true. They are typically just
> the next number in a list of parts released. There is no direct information
> on feature set encoded in that value, we have to have a look up table in
> the driver to translate to feature set. (Not relevant here but sometimes
> manufacturers forget to change the number and we get different feature
> sets with the same ID and no discoverability)

I did not mean there is direct information. I meant that you can create
such map, so basically it is defining all features.

> 
> If they were an OR of features that would be great.
> 
> The thing is a little structured in this case
> 
> 0x07         Liquid flow sensor
> 0x  03       Product family (e.g. SLF3x)
> 0x    03     Subtype (e.g. SLF3S-0600F)
> 0x      02   Revision number (changes with minor firmware or hardware revisions)
> 
> But both the product family and subtype are numbers to feed into look up tables
> (maybe revision number as well)

The values don't matter. What only matters is that each is unique, you
can map it to a real device (and its datasheet) and features are
decodable from the datasheet.

Best regards,
Krzysztof