[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220718220012.GA3625497-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:00:12 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Alexandru Tachici <alexandru.tachici@...log.com>,
Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@...il.com>,
Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@...il.com>,
Kent Gustavsson <kent@...oris.se>,
Tomislav Denis <tomislav.denis@....com>,
Stefan Popa <stefan.popa@...log.com>,
Beniamin Bia <beniamin.bia@...log.com>,
Patrick Vasseur <patrick.vasseur@....fr>,
Vladimir Barinov <vladimir.barinov@...entembedded.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Philippe Reynes <tremyfr@...oo.fr>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
Alexandru Lazar <alazar@...rtmail.com>,
Oskar Andero <oskar.andero@...il.com>,
MÃ¥rten Lindahl <martenli@...s.com>,
Bogdan Pricop <bogdan.pricop@...tex.com>,
Angelo Compagnucci <angelo.compagnucci@...il.com>,
Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: iio: adc: use spi-peripheral-props.yaml
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 07:26:04PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 11:53:02 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> > Instead of listing directly properties typical for SPI peripherals,
> > reference the spi-peripheral-props.yaml schema. This allows using all
> > properties typical for SPI-connected devices, even these which device
> > bindings author did not tried yet.
> >
> > Remove the spi-* properties which now come via spi-peripheral-props.yaml
> > schema, except for the cases when device schema adds some constraints
> > like maximum frequency.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > This is an RFC with only some files changed, as I am still not sure of
> > benefits for typical case - device node has just spi-max-frequency and
> > nothing more. I still find useful to reference the schema, but maybe I
> > am missing something?
> >
> > Before doing wide-tree cleanup like this, I would be happy to receive
> > some feedback whether this makes sense.
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> This has the side effect of allowing spi-cpol / spi-cpha for devices
> where they weren't previously allowed by the binding. A typical device
> only supports a subset of combinations of those.
>
> I'm not clear whether these should always be allowed (e.g. allow for inverters
> etc in the path) or whether we should be enforcing the "correct"
> settings for devices assuming they are directly connected.
>
> Currently we have a bunch of bindings that are documenting the allowed
> flexibility - including cases where only particular combinations of these
> settings are allowed.
>
> So we could either:
> 1) Note that we've been doing it wrong and the binding should not enforce
> these constraints so remove them.
I'd lean towards this.
> 2) Add explicit spi-cpol: false statements etc the drivers where they
> are not allowed.
3) Drop spi-cpol / spi-cpha from spi-peripheral-props.yaml. It's purpose
is to collect all possible SPI controller properties that are per child
node. Whereas we've said spi-cpol / spi-cpha are device specific
properties.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists