Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: proximity: move LIDAR-Lite v2 out of trivial-devices

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 16:18:40 -0300
Rodrigo Gobbi <[email protected]> wrote:

> The PulsedLight LIDAR-Lite v2 is currently described as a trivial device,
> but it is not one: besides the I2C interface it exposes a power-enable
> pin and a mode-control pin.
> 
> The mode-control pin can trigger acquisitions and report the measured
> distance through a PWM signal, entirely bypassing I2C. That usage is
> bidirectional and non-cyclic, so it doesn't map onto any existing
> binding for describing pin behaviour, and is intentionally left
> undocumented here. The same pin can, however, also be used as a plain
> status output while I2C remains the active interface, which is
> described through the new interrupts property.
> 
> Move the device to a dedicated binding file and document the
> power-enable, power-supply and interrupt properties that
> trivial-devices.yaml has no way to express.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Gobbi <[email protected]>
> ---
>  .../proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml  | 64 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../devicetree/bindings/trivial-devices.yaml  |  2 -
>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..e19c8d166b81
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/proximity/pulsedlight,lidar-lite-v2.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Pulsedlight LIDAR-Lite v2 range-finding sensor
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Matt Ranostay <[email protected]>
I'll need an Ack or Reviewed-by from Matt for this. If Matt either doesn't
reply for a while, or isn't happy to take on this much fuller binding,
is it something you'd consider putting yourself down for?

Otherwise LGTM

Thanks,

Jonathan