Re: [PATCH v5 04/11] dt-bindings: iio: adc: add AXP803 ADC bindings

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:29:59 +0800
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:10 PM Quentin Schulz
> <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 03:40:11PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:56:33 -0500
> > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:53:23 +0300, Oskari Lemmela wrote:  
> > > > > The AXP803 ADC is compatible with AXP813 ADC, but add
> > > > > specific compatible for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Oskari Lemmela <oskari@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/axp20x_adc.txt | 2 ++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> > >
> > > This doesn't seem to have any dependencies with the other patches
> > > so applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing
> > > for the autobuilders to ignore.  However I am a little curious to know
> > > why we would add the ID and then not use it (that I can see)?
> > >  
> >
> > Sometimes with Allwinner (and X-Powers), two IPs seem identical until we
> > discover something that is slightly different. When this happens, we
> > have to add a compatible to differentiate both. However, we would also
> > need to change the Device Tree to change the compatible. We would need
> > to handle the driver behaviour for both Device Trees.
> >
> > So better anticipate a possible difference so that we don't have to do
> > some hacks in the driver to handle the device correctly.
> >
> > As always, Chen-Yu or Maxime may know better so I'm just stating what I
> > seem to recall.  
> 
> With Allwinner stuff (X-Powers included), sometimes the documents are
> incomplete or have errors. We tend to add a model-specific compatible
> just in case things turn out not to be so compatible, unless someone
> has triple-checked everything, documents and actual hardware included.
> 
> However we don't actually document these, so this patch isn't strictly
> needed. (I suppose this might annoy the device tree binding maintainers.)
> 
> ChenYu
I don't think it does any harm so I'll leave it in place.  Thanks for
the explanations.

Jonathan