linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] dt-bindings: iio: adc: add ad4851

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]

Message-ID: <20241019144201.7f274e09@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 14:42:01 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>
Cc: <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <ukleinek@...nel.org>, <dragos.bogdan@...log.com>,
 <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] dt-bindings: iio: adc: add ad4851

On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 13:42:09 +0300
Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com> wrote:

> Add devicetree bindings for ad485x family.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> Signed-off-by: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>

One question inline.
> +examples:
> +  - |
> +    spi {
> +        #address-cells = <1>;
> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> +        adc@0{
> +            compatible = "adi,ad4858";
> +            reg = <0>;
> +            spi-max-frequency = <10000000>;
> +            vcc-supply = <&vcc>;
> +            vdd-supply = <&vdd>;
> +            vee-supply = <&vee>;
> +            vddh-supply = <&vddh>;
> +            vddl-supply = <&vddh>;
I was curious what these supplies are giving h and l naming.
Seems vddh is the supply for an LDO and vddhl is a way of supplying
an alternative 1.8V to the output from that LDO.

Superficially it looks like an either or situation.  I'm not that
worried if the binding enforces that detail though it would be nice
to do so.  However this example seems misleading as I don't think you
would ever connect them to the same supply.

> +            vio-supply = <&vio>;
> +            pwms = <&pwm_gen 0 0>;
> +            io-backends = <&iio_backend>;
> +        };
> +    };
> +...