linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: iio: adc: ti,adc081c: Document the binding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 27 Nov 2022 17:42:19 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: iio: adc: ti,adc081c: Document the binding

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:51:19 +0100
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 25/11/2022 23:09, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > Linux has a driver for these ADCs at drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc081c.c, but
> > the compatible strings were undocumented. Add a binding for them. The
> > hardware has an alert interrupt output, but existing ti,adc081c users
> > do not provide the 'interrupts' property, so leave it as optional.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>
> > ---
> > 
> >  .../bindings/iio/adc/ti,adc081c.yaml          | 55 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,adc081c.yaml
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,adc081c.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,adc081c.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..caaad777580c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,adc081c.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/adc/ti,adc081c.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: TI Single-channel I2C ADCs
> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > +  - Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
> > +  - Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
> > +
> > +description: |
> > +  Single-channel ADC supporting 8, 10, or 12-bit samples and high/low alerts.
> > +
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    enum:
> > +      - ti,adc081c
> > +      - ti,adc101c
> > +      - ti,adc121c
> > +
> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  interrupts:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  vref-supply:
> > +    description:
> > +      Regulator for the combined power supply and voltage reference
> > +
> > +  "#io-channel-cells":
> > +    const: 1
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg  
> 
> Why not requiring io-channel-cells? If it is an IIO ADC provider, you
> need the cells, right?

Only if anyone is using it as a provider.  If it's purely being used via
IIO then there are no consumers registered.

So historically I've left it up to those defining the binding to decide if
they think #io-channel-cells should be required or optional.

It gets a bit non obvious with some of the more complex special ADCs on whether
they will ever be consumed.  This one is generic, so quite likely it will be.

Jonathan

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>