linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: trivial-devices: Add Garmin lidar-lite-v3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <240f464a-5f99-4bef-a811-3bbc083e7f20@baylibre.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:47:05 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Rodrigo Gobbi <rodrigo.gobbi.7@...il.com>
Cc: conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 ~lkcamp/patches@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: trivial-devices: Add Garmin lidar-lite-v3

On 7/17/25 5:24 PM, Rodrigo Gobbi wrote:
>> As a general rule of thumb, using the driver as justification for
>> dt-bindings is never a good reason. The bindings describe the hardware,
>> not the driver.
> 
> Looks like I`ve failed to double-check the datasheet here, sorry for that,
> I`ll try to remember that in future occasions.
> 
>> Assuming I found the correct datasheet [1], I see a power enable pin
>> and a mode control pin, so I would say that this isn't a trivial device.
>> Therefore this will need it's own new file. We could at least add
>> power-gpios and power-supply properties. How to handle the mode pin
>> isn't so clear to me though, so might omit that for now.
> 
> Agree, actually, I was wondering here if the lidar-lite-v2 ref that I`ve found
> when adding the grmn,lidar-lite-v3 is actually a trivial. 
> It was originally added as trivial over txt file at [1] and then converted to yaml but
> it looks like it is also not a trivial considering some refs at [2] and [3] (not official docs).
> At those refs, I can see the same enable/mode pins.
> 
> Should we also move that out of trivial in a dedicated binding or should we keep as is
> considering those docs are not official/device is very old?
> Tks and regards!
> 
> [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/12280bd3d5d7e1ba1dd60ba0bd4412f4056fc028
> [2] https://www.electrokit.com/upload/product/41013/41013964/lidarlite2DS.pdf
> [3] https://www.14core.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LIDAR-Lite-v2-Datasheet.pdf
> 

I only looked at [3], but it looks reliable enough. It also looks (at a
quick glance) pin-compatible with v3, so I would make v3 have a fallback
compatible string to v2. And yeah, put both in the same file since they
are pretty much the same hardware.