Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-121334-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:04:51 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc: lee@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
 conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mfd: rohm-bd71828: Add power off functionality
Message-ID: <20240327140451.65ff8e18@aktux>
In-Reply-To: <815e1cdc-145e-4880-96a0-d9c21308b9b3@gmail.com>
References: <20240326192258.298143-1-andreas@kemnade.info>
	<20240326192258.298143-3-andreas@kemnade.info>
	<815e1cdc-145e-4880-96a0-d9c21308b9b3@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:32:29 +0200
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's worth noting that there is another PMIC, BD71879, which, from the 
> driver software point of view, should be (almost?) identical to the 
> BD71828. I believe the BD71828 drivers should work with it as well - if 
> not out of the box, at least with very minor modifications. 
> Unfortunately I don't know products where the BD71879 is used or if it 
> is sold via distributors - so I don't know if adding a DT 
> compatible/chip type define for it would be beneficial.

yes, you already told we thet the BD71828 drivers are compatible with
the BD71879 and I am using the latter. 
But that at least should be commented somewhere, so that
people do not raise questions, like: Do I have some strange board revision,
etc?
The most terse form to comment it is a separate dt compatible so we are
prepare any "almost identical" surprises.

Regards,
Andreas