[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230316124307.pzuvbacsmjdootfx@SoMainline.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:43:07 +0100
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@...ainline.org>,
iio@...r.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: thermal: qcom-spmi-adc-tm5: Use
generic ADC node name
On 2023-02-05 15:06:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 15:25:01 -0600
> Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 09:44:46PM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > Update the example to reflect a future requirement for the generic
> > > adc-chan node name on ADC channel nodes, while conveying the board name
> > > of the channel in a label instead.
> >
> > I don't think we've defined 'adc-chan' as THE generic name. Looks like
> > we have:
> >
> > adc-chan
> > adc-channel
> > channel
> >
> > 'channel' is the most common (except for QCom).
> Good spot.
>
> We also have that defined as the channel name in
> bindings/iio/adc.yaml
Good point, let's match adc.yaml and use 'channel' instead. I'll
respin this series with thas, as well as rebasing on -next to solve
conflicts with 8013295662f5 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add label
property to vadc channel nodes"): supposedly that DT originally relied
on the `@XX` suffix bug :)
> Now this particular binding doesn't use anything from that
> generic binding (other than trivial use of reg) but better to be
> consistent with it than not!
Should it inherit the common binding, or was it omitted for a reason?
- Marijn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists