On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:08:12PM +0100, Julien Massot wrote:
On 3/7/24 20:21, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 04:26:06PM +0100, Julien Massot wrote:All the work has been done on MAX96714F variant of this Maxim GMSL2
Add DT bindings for Maxim MAX96714 GMSL2 Deserializer.
Signed-off-by: Julien Massot <julien.massot@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Change since v3:
- Renamed file to maxim,max96714.yaml dropped the 'f' suffix
Why? The filename should match the compatible, which /does/ have an f.
deserializer.
The driver and the binding remain suitable for all variants of this chipset,
since they share the same
register mapping, similar features etc..
MAX96714 exists in different variant: MAX96714 / MAX96714F / MAX96714K that
will be easy
to add support for this binding and driver later.
Either document the non-f version if it really is that similar, using
all of the same properties, or name the file after the version you've
actually documented. I don't see why this particular case should be
given an exception to how bindings are named.
What is the actual difference between the f and non f versions? Is it
visible to software?