Hi Community,
we’ve noticed that the SDM72D-M-2 is technically identical to the SDM630 — both in terms of communication protocol and register mapping.
How should we handle this case?
@stefan.feilmeier — would it make sense to simply add a note in the README mentioning that the SDM72D-M-2 can be used with the existing SDM630 implementation? Or do you prefer that we explicitly duplicate the Code renaming it to SDM72D to make it clearer for users?
Regards