[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36eb03e8-aace-f7ce-edc8-53715021c0ea@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:23:17 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <kholk11@...il.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add configuration for PMI8950
peripheral
On 08/12/2022 11:12, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-04 17:19:05, Luca Weiss wrote:
>> On Freitag, 2. Dezember 2022 10:36:58 CET Marijn Suijten wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>> So the way this patch does it is good or does it need changes?
>
> Except the typo(s?) pointed out in my first reply, this is good to go.
>
> If we stick with generic adc-chan node names that should be documented
> in the bindings IMO, as it is currently only captured implicitly in the
> examples. Krzysztof, what is your thought on this?
If I understand correctly, the outcome of other discussion [1] was to
use labels and generic node names. In such case the patch was correct
(except other comments).
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221112162719.0ac87998@jic23-huawei/
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists