linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] iio: adc: adc128s052: Support ROHM BD7910[0,1,2,3]

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: <384f56af-efb3-412b-9874-4d422fe2ac8c@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 09:16:24 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
 Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá
 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sukrut Bellary <sbellary@...libre.com>,
 Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iio: adc: adc128s052: Support ROHM BD7910[0,1,2,3]

On 8/15/25 12:23 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 14/08/2025 18:01, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 8/14/25 3:35 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>> The ROHM BD79100, BD79101, BD79102, BD79103 are very similar ADCs as the
>>> ROHM BD79104. The BD79100 has only 1 channel. BD79101 has 2 channels and
>>> the BD79102 has 4 channels. Both BD79103 and BD79104 have 4 channels,
>>> and, based on the data sheets, they seem identical from the software
>>> point-of-view.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>
>> One small suggestion. With that:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
>>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c
>>> index 81153253529e..2f2ed438cf4e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c
>>> @@ -122,6 +122,10 @@ static const struct iio_chan_spec adc124s021_channels[] = {
>>>       ADC128_VOLTAGE_CHANNEL(3),
>>>   };
>>>   +static const struct iio_chan_spec bd79100_channels[] = {
>>
>> Even though the driver doesn't support it yet, there is a
>> adc121s021 [1] so would be nice to use that instead of bd79100
>> to keep the naming consistent.
> 
> I have to disagree on this one. For people who don't use the TI ADCs, the TI numbering does not bring any clarity. 


I think it does in this case because the part number includes the bits
and number of channels. And the pattern is pretty easy to spot without
looking at the datasheets. This is why I suggested it. Otherwise, I would
agree with your points in general.