[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30a4b562-f553-2620-e961-c2904bce9c51@metafoo.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:29:16 +0200
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] IIO wrapper drivers, dpot-dac and envelope-detector
On 10/20/2016 04:53 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
[...]
> Good idea! Then the "envelope-detector,inverted" bool can go, and be
> implied by the compatible string. If some way to rebind the irq trigger
> is later discovered that can be added as a channel attr without
> deprecating any dt bindings stuff. While at it, the other properties
> ("envelope-detector,dac-max" and "envelope-detector,comp-interval-ms")
> could also be implied from the compatible string. Would that be better?
> I think so.
>
> But, the compatible string is one thing and the driver name is another.
> "axentia,tse850-envelope-detector" doesn't seem like the best of driver
> names...
The driver name is not that important we can still change that later if we
have to, the DT compatible string on the other hand is fixed.
>
> Are there any existing examples of drivers for (generic) things built
> with discrete components like this that could perhaps provide guidance?
Not that I'm aware of.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists