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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ae976e31-78db-44f7-a3d7-b6178692401e@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 09:17:29 -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>
>>>

...

> static const struct iio_chan_spec simple_adc_channels1 {}
> static const struct iio_chan_spec simple_adc_channels2 {}
> static const struct iio_chan_spec simple_adc_channels4 {}
> static const struct iio_chan_spec simple_adc_channels8 {}
> 
> This which should be clear(ish) for developer no matter which of the supported IC(s) were used. But if we stick with the IC based naming, then we should use naming by supported IC.
> 
>>
Even better.