Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-121409-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <c6f5a515-61a1-4d87-a029-4000fa96f10e@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:11:36 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mfd: rohm-bd71828: Add power off functionality
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
To: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
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
References: <20240326192258.298143-1-andreas@kemnade.info>
 <20240326192258.298143-3-andreas@kemnade.info>
 <815e1cdc-145e-4880-96a0-d9c21308b9b3@gmail.com>
 <20240327140451.65ff8e18@aktux>
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240327140451.65ff8e18@aktux>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/27/24 15:04, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> 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.

I agree. Reason why I haven't done this already is that I don't always 
(like in this case) know which of the variant are eventually sold. So, 
it's balancing dance between adding compatibles for ICs that will never 
been seen by large audience, and missing compatibles for some of the 
variants.

This is also why I was interested in knowing which variant you had, and 
where was it used.

But yes, I think that as the BD71879 has obviously been found by a 
community linux kernel user - it would make sense to add a compatible 
for it!

Do you feel like adding the compatible 'rohm,bd71879' in 
rohm,bd71828-pmic.yaml as part of this series(?)

Yours,
	-- Matti

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

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