Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2023 08:56:30 -0700 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add lltc ltc4286 driver bindings |
| |
On 8/1/23 22:31, Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Guenter Roeck >> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:22 AM >> To: Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn <Delphine_CC_Chiu@wiwynn.com> >> Cc: patrick@stwcx.xyz; Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>; Rob Herring >> <robh+dt@kernel.org>; Krzysztof Kozlowski >> <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>; linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org; >> linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add lltc ltc4286 driver >> bindings >> >> Security Reminder: Please be aware that this email is sent by an external >> sender. >> >> On 7/23/23 19:12, Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn wrote: >> >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + enum: >>>>> + - lltc,ltc4286 >>>>> + - lltc,ltc4287 >>>> >>>> There is no LTC4287, at least according to the Analog website. >>> It has been announced on Analog Devices website. >>> Please refer to this link: >>> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. >>> >> analog.com%2Fen%2Fproducts%2Fltc2487.html%23product-overview&data=0 >> 5%7 >>> >> C01%7CWayne_SC_Liu%40wiwynn.com%7Cd97a86a696a54f28a26408db8bf52 >> 23d%7Cd >>> >> a6e0628fc834caf9dd273061cbab167%7C0%7C0%7C638257657193005539%7C >> Unknown >>> >> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haW >> wiLCJ >>> >> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XrdlzCyq0pcjfv3M6QNX73Ieux0w >> rfNKzNvv >>> HgVSH40%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> No, that is wrong. You are pointing to ltc2487, which is something completely >> different. >> > > We have sent e-mail to query about the release date for LTC4287 chip. > Analog Device reply that they will release this chip in last week of Sep, 2023. > Please refer to the attachment to review their reply. >
At least according to the driver code, LTC4286 and the LTC4287 are functionally identical. I am kind of puzzled why you insist mentioning the not-yet-existing LTC4287; instantiating LTC4287 as LTC4286 should work perfectly fine. LTC4287 can always be added as devicetree reference if/when it officially exists.
Care to explain ?
Note: If the chips are _not_ functionally identical, and a follow-up patch will be needed to add full LTC4287 support to the driver after the chip has been published, it would be inappropriate to make partial/incomplete changes now. With that possibility in mind, I am not inclined to accept a driver that is even mentioning LTC4287 without access to its datasheet because I think it is important for me to understand the differences and similarities between the two chips.
Guenter
| |