Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700 | From | Matthias Kaehlcke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull' |
| |
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > The node has a reg property, therefore its name should include a unit > > > address. > > > > > > Also change the name from 'usb_id_nopull' to 'usb-id-nopull' to follow > > > DT conventions. > > > > This is ADC channels? If so, then DT convention would really be > > "adc@...". > > Is it really? A grep for 'adc@' in arch/${ARCH}/boot/dts yields > mostly ADC controller not channel nodes. > > I'm totally fine with changing the name to 'adc@...' if that's the > preference/convention, just want to reconfirm since the actual use is > a bit ambiguous.
Could we please reach a conclusion on this?
Summarizing the options on the table so far are:
1. usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID 2. usb-id-nopull@57 3. adc@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID 4. adc@57
My personal preference goes to something <node name>@<define> since the unit address doesn't just resolve to an ADC channel number but also includes configuation information. A literal like '57' conveys less information than the define, it's easier to introduce errors and these errors are harder to spot.
If 'adc@...' really was the convention (or should be) I'd be clearly in favor of following it. As mentioned above, in practice the use of the 'adc@...' node name seems to be more prevalent for ADC controllers than channels, so I'm more inclined towards 'usb-id-nopull@...' or similar.
All that said, these are just my preferences for the reasons outlined above, if DT maintainers really want it to be 'adc@57' or some variation of that, I'm fine with that too. Please let me know and we can move forward with this trivial series.
Thanks
Matthias
| |