linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tmp102: Add TMP110 and TMP113 devices

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: <20250922162004.GA199858-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:20:04 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Flaviu Nistor <flaviu.nistor@...il.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: hwmon: tmp102: Add TMP110 and TMP113
 devices

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 09:33:42AM +0300, Flaviu Nistor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 18:18:51PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 08:08:18PM +0300, Flaviu Nistor wrote:
> >> Add a compatible string for TMP110 and TMP113 devices.
> >>=20
> >> Signed-off-by: Flaviu Nistor <flaviu.nistor@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml | 2 ++
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>=20
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml
> >> index 96b2e4969f78..840b5306a8cf 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwmon/ti,tmp102.yaml
> >> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ properties:
> >>    compatible:
> >>      enum:
> >>        - ti,tmp102
> >> +      - ti,tmp110
> >> +      - ti,tmp113
> >
> >The driver has no match data and no compatible based decisions added in
> >your patch. Why is a fallback to tmp102 not suitable?
> >
> Thanks for the review, it is now more clear to me. You are right, the
> fallback to tmp102 can be used. My intentions were to be able to make it
> clear in the dts which is the real used sensor on the board but this can
> be achieved via the node name (or label). 

No, node name or label is not how you do that. compatible is the right 
way.