[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181012171523.GQ22824@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:15:23 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include
unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > The node has a reg property, therefore its name should include a unit
> > address.
> >
> > Also change the name from 'usb_id_nopull' to 'usb-id-nopull' to follow
> > DT conventions.
>
> This is ADC channels? If so, then DT convention would really be
> "adc@...".
Is it really? A grep for 'adc@' in arch/${ARCH}/boot/dts yields
mostly ADC controller not channel nodes.
I'm totally fine with changing the name to 'adc@...' if that's the
preference/convention, just want to reconfirm since the actual use is
a bit ambiguous.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists