Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: drm/bridge: ti-tmds181: Add TI TMDS181 and SN65DP159 bindings

[Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@topic.nl>]

On 19-08-2025 09:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/08/2025 09:46, Mike Looijmans wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +properties:
>>>> +  compatible:
>>>> +    enum:
>>>> +      - ti,tmds181
>>>> +      - ti,sn65dp159
>>> The driver contains:
>>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,tmds181", },
>>> +	{ .compatible = "ti,sn65dp159", },
>>> +	{}
>>> so why is a fallback compatible not suitable here?
>> I don't understand the question. The two are slightly different chips,
> Your driver says they are compatible. No one said the same, but compatible.
>
>> so it makes sense to describe that in the DT.
> Compatible devices should use fallback. There is plenty of examples (90%
> of all binding files?) including example-schema describing this.

Please help me out here, I'm happy to oblige, but I don't understand 
what you're asking.

To the best of my knowledge "fallback" compatible is when you write 
something like this in the device-tree:
    compatible = "st,m25p80", "jedec,spi-nor";
Which means that we can use the "jedec,spi-nor" driver if there's no 
specific match for "st,m25p80", correct?

I don't understand how that relates to your request, this is the first 
time I ever got this particular feedback. Looking at say the 
ti,sn65dsi83 driver, it does the same thing (supports the ti,sn65dsi83 
and ti,sn65dsi84).

Please explain or point me somewhere where I can find this?

>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof


-- 
Mike Looijmans
System Expert

TOPIC Embedded Products B.V.
Materiaalweg 4, 5681 RJ Best
The Netherlands

T: +31 (0) 499 33 69 69
E: mike.looijmans@topic.nl
W: www.topic.nl