Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: iio: rename bu27034 file

From: Matti Vaittinen
Date: Tue Jul 09 2024 - 14:33:20 EST


On 7/8/24 20:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 01:54:26PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
The BU27034NUC was cancelled before it entered mass production. It was
replaced by a new variant BU27034ANUC (note, added 'A'). The new
variant gained a few significant changes, like removal of the 3.rd data
channel and dropping some of the gain settings. This means that, from
software point of view these ICs are incompatible. Lux calculation based
on the data from the sensors needs to be done differently, and on the
BU27034ANUC the channel 3 data is missing. Also, the gain setting
differencies matter.

The old sensor should not be out there so the compatible was dropped and
a new compatible was added for the bu27034anuc. Move the yaml file so
the file name matches the binding and change the $id.

Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Revision history:
v1 => v2:
- New patch
---
.../iio/light/{rohm,bu27034.yaml => rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml} | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/{rohm,bu27034.yaml => rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml} (92%)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml
similarity index 92%
rename from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml
rename to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml
index 535bd18348ac..fc3d826ed8ba 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
%YAML 1.2
---
-$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/light/rohm,bu27034.yaml#
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/light/rohm,bu27034anuc.yaml#
$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#

IMO this should be squashed.

I've no objections to squashing this. The main motivation of having it as a separate patch was to point out the file rename for reviewers and ask if it is Ok. Furthermore, if there was a reason not to do the rename, then this patch could've been just dropped while the rest of the series could've been applied.

Thanks for the review!

Yours,
-- Matti

--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~