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 22:09:19 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.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 27/11/2022 18:42, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 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.

I remember I asked some time ago and got the same answer... need to
write it down into my notes :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof