Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:49:43 +0100 | From | Jonathan Cameron <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] dt-bindings: iio: adc: Require generic `channel` name for channel nodes |
| |
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 22:31:46 +0200 Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org> wrote:
> On 2023-04-12 21:27:56, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 22:29:17 +0200 > > Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org> wrote: > > > > > As discussed in [1] it is more convenient to use a generic `channel` > > > node name for ADC channels while storing a friendly - board-specific > > > instead of PMIC-specific - name in the label, if/when desired to > > > overwrite the channel description already contained (but previously > > > unused) in the driver [2]. > > > > > > The same `channel` node name pattern has also been set in > > > iio/adc/adc.yaml, but this generic binding is not inherited as base for > > > qcom,spmi-vadc bindings due to not having any other generic elements in > > > common, besides the node name rule and reg property. > > > > > > Replace the .* name pattern with the `channel` literal, but leave the > > > label property optional for bindings to choose to fall back a channel > > > label hardcoded in the driver [2] instead. > > > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221106193018.270106-1-marijn.suijten@somainline.org/T/#u > > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230116220909.196926-4-marijn.suijten@somainline.org/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org> > > > > There are various ways we could pick up this patch set... > > a) Binding changes via individual subsystem trees, > > b) All in on go. > > > > I think it's late to guarantee to land the changes from (a) in the coming merge window > > so if someone else is willing to do (b) then > > > > Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> > > > > Otherwise we can do (a) early in next cycle. Feel free to poke me if we are doing (b) > > and I seem to have forgotten to pick up this patch! > > Thanks! I hope we don't get many conflicts (+ new bindings adhering to > the old(er) formats) otherwise I'll resend if we do (a). Around what > time would be good, rc2?
Sure. If rebase is needed send a v5 with that done. If not, a simple reminder reply to this thread will probably work.
Thanks,
Jonathan
> > [..] > > - Marijn
| |