[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a311de1b-cd59-4f67-9bd1-61596a54c8cd@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:29:06 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@...il.com>
Cc: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt@...log.com>, lars@...afoo.de,
Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: iio: adc: adi,ad4000: Add PulSAR
On 22/11/2024 16:33, Marcelo Schmitt wrote:
>>
>>> + - items:
>>> + - enum:
>>> + - adi,ad7942
>>> + - const: adi,ad7946
>>> +
>>> + - const: adi,ad7983
>>> + - items:
>>> + - enum:
>>> + - adi,ad7980
>>> + - adi,ad7988-5
>>> + - adi,ad7686
>>> + - adi,ad7685
>>
>> Keep alphabetical order.
>
> Do the fallbacks declared here have any impact on the match try order or on how
> the compatible list should be ordered?
I don't understand, we do not talk about fallbacks. I also do not
understand at all how this relates to my comment.
> The only significant difference between each group of devices is the sample rate.
> A faster device can read at slower sample rates so if somebody knows to have
> a 16-bit pseudo-differential PulSAR but doesn't know about the exact model they
> could have a compatible like
> compatible = "adi,ad7980", "adi,ad7988-5", "adi,ad7686", "adi,ad7685",
> "adi,ad7988-1", "adi,ad7983";
Can't you autodetect this?
>
> to try from fastest to slowest device.
> The dt doc would indicate that order in the fallback list?
> - items:
> - enum:
> - adi,ad7980 # Fastest 16-bit pseudo-differential ADC
> - adi,ad7988-5 # 2nd fastest 16-bit pseudo-differential ADC
> - adi,ad7686 # 3rd fastest 16-bit pseudo-differential ADC
> - adi,ad7685 # 4th fastest 16-bit pseudo-differential ADC
> - adi,ad7988-1 # 5th fastest 16-bit pseudo-differential ADC
> - const: adi,ad7983 # Slowest 16-bit pseudo-differential ADC
Again, only one fallback here, not sure what are you asking about. BTW,
DT spec explains compatibles...
>
> https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ad7691.pdf
> has a nice table with the different devices and sample rates.
>
> writing-bindings.rst says "DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same
> as or a subset of prior implementations."
> But, how can we use fallbacks properly?
How DT spec and tutorials like elinux ask... What is exactly the problem
or question?
> From Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml I'm
How LVDS bridge is related to this one here?
> inferring only one fallback should be provided per group of devices.
>
>>
>>> + - adi,ad7988-1
>>> + - const: adi,ad7983
>>> +
>>> + - const: adi,ad7688
>>> + - items:
>>> + - enum:
>>> + - adi,ad7693
>>> + - adi,ad7687
>>> + - const: adi,ad7688
>>> +
>>> + - const: adi,ad7984
>>> + - items:
>>> + - enum:
>>> + - adi,ad7982
>>> + - adi,ad7690
>>> + - adi,ad7691
>>> + - const: adi,ad7984
>>> +
>>> reg:
>>> maxItems: 1
>>>
>>> @@ -133,6 +178,32 @@ required:
>>> - ref-supply
>>>
>>> allOf:
>>> + # Single-channel PulSAR devices have SDI either tied to VIO, GND, or host CS.
>>> + - if:
>>> + properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + contains:
>>> + enum:
>>> + - adi,ad7685
>>
>> Why do you need this? It's fallback is already here.
>
> So dtbs_check can provide an error message if for example compatible = "adi,ad7687";
> and adi,sdi-pin = "sdi";
I mean this compatible, not if clause.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists