linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] dt-bindings: iio: dac: maxim,ds4424: add maxim,rfs-ohms property

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260125102207.37ce3501@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 10:22:07 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko
 <andy@...nel.org>, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Nuno
 Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] dt-bindings: iio: dac: maxim,ds4424: add
 maxim,rfs-ohms property

On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 11:03:38 +0100
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 09:28:19AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 18:27:52 +0000
> > Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 07:24:18PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:  
> > > > Introduce the 'maxim,rfs-ohms' property. The full-scale output current
> > > > of these DACs is determined by external resistors (Rfs) connected to
> > > > the FS pins. The driver requires the physical resistance values to
> > > > calculate the correct current scale (Amps per step) for the IIO
> > > > subsystem.
> > > > 
> > > > Keep it optional to avoid forcing updates of existing DTs; without it
> > > > the driver cannot derive a correct IIO scale.    
> > > 
> > > I don't really follow the logic here, if the driver doesn't work
> > > properly without it, shouldn't it be a required property even if that
> > > means existing devicetrees get new warnings? Warnings are preferable to
> > > the drivers malfunctioning on those devices, after all!  
> > 
> > Agreed. The driver can paper over holes or I guess we could provide a default
> > if the datasheet has some reference value or similar?    
> 
> No, this DAC controls the current. The current range is application specific and
> defined by the load resistors. Is it better to not provide scale if this
> information not available, guessing it will make things worse and
> potentially damage some HW.
> 
Then does this need to be a fix on the driver side?
Or are you just suggesting not proving the scale if we don't have enough info?
That's fine if so.

> > DT binding should require it.  
> 
> ACK