Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:00:16 -0500
Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:17 AM Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700
> > Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> >
> > > 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 @
> > > 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.
> >
> > I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option.
>
> If you really want the defines, then fine. Of course, that only works
> if the function is fixed. It won't work if the function is defined per
> board.
>
> Eventually, examples using defines will have to also include the
> headers. I plan to make the examples build-able.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Rob, what's your view on this?
>
> I want node names that reflect the class of the node (not a specific
> model) and consistency across bindings. What that looks like for
> multi-channel ADCs is really up to you. There was another binding
> recently which mapped sub-nodes to inputs rather than channels. Maybe
> that's needed too if you have more inputs than simultaneous channels.
>From a DT point of view the simultaneous channels vs inputs isn't meant
to be currently visible. It's a userspace problem and from IIO point
of view a 'channel' is an input (you just might not be able to enable
all channels at once!)
channel@ would work for me, though that might then match other types
of device where this has a different meaning. Perhaps
adc_chan@ ?
>
> Also, if your goal is to just quiet dtc warnings, then I'd prefer you
> not. They often point to bigger issues even if they can be fixed with
> trivial changes. Of course, if not fixed someone else will come along
> and try the trivial fix again.
Agreed. Would be good to have these consistent however as it is a fairly
common thing to represent.
Jonathan
>
> Rob
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:00:16 -0500
Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:17 AM Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700
> > Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> >
> > > 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 @
> > > 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.
> >
> > I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option.
>
> If you really want the defines, then fine. Of course, that only works
> if the function is fixed. It won't work if the function is defined per
> board.
>
> Eventually, examples using defines will have to also include the
> headers. I plan to make the examples build-able.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Rob, what's your view on this?
>
> I want node names that reflect the class of the node (not a specific
> model) and consistency across bindings. What that looks like for
> multi-channel ADCs is really up to you. There was another binding
> recently which mapped sub-nodes to inputs rather than channels. Maybe
> that's needed too if you have more inputs than simultaneous channels.
>From a DT point of view the simultaneous channels vs inputs isn't meant
to be currently visible. It's a userspace problem and from IIO point
of view a 'channel' is an input (you just might not be able to enable
all channels at once!)
channel@ would work for me, though that might then match other types
of device where this has a different meaning. Perhaps
adc_chan@ ?
>
> Also, if your goal is to just quiet dtc warnings, then I'd prefer you
> not. They often point to bigger issues even if they can be fixed with
> trivial changes. Of course, if not fixed someone else will come along
> and try the trivial fix again.
Agreed. Would be good to have these consistent however as it is a fairly
common thing to represent.
Jonathan
>
> Rob
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:17 AM Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700
> Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>
> > 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 @
> > 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.
>
> I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option.
If you really want the defines, then fine. Of course, that only works
if the function is fixed. It won't work if the function is defined per
board.
Eventually, examples using defines will have to also include the
headers. I plan to make the examples build-able.
> > 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.
>
> Rob, what's your view on this?
I want node names that reflect the class of the node (not a specific
model) and consistency across bindings. What that looks like for
multi-channel ADCs is really up to you. There was another binding
recently which mapped sub-nodes to inputs rather than channels. Maybe
that's needed too if you have more inputs than simultaneous channels.
Also, if your goal is to just quiet dtc warnings, then I'd prefer you
not. They often point to bigger issues even if they can be fixed with
trivial changes. Of course, if not fixed someone else will come along
and try the trivial fix again.
Rob
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:17 AM Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700
> Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>
> > 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 @
> > 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.
>
> I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option.
If you really want the defines, then fine. Of course, that only works
if the function is fixed. It won't work if the function is defined per
board.
Eventually, examples using defines will have to also include the
headers. I plan to make the examples build-able.
> > 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.
>
> Rob, what's your view on this?
I want node names that reflect the class of the node (not a specific
model) and consistency across bindings. What that looks like for
multi-channel ADCs is really up to you. There was another binding
recently which mapped sub-nodes to inputs rather than channels. Maybe
that's needed too if you have more inputs than simultaneous channels.
Also, if your goal is to just quiet dtc warnings, then I'd prefer you
not. They often point to bigger issues even if they can be fixed with
trivial changes. Of course, if not fixed someone else will come along
and try the trivial fix again.
Rob
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700
Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> 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 @
> 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.
I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option.
>
> 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.
Rob, what's your view on this?
Thanks,
Jonathan
>
> Thanks
>
> Matthias
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:40:10 -0700
Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> 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 @
> 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.
I agree that to my mind this is the most sensible option.
>
> 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.
Rob, what's your view on this?
Thanks,
Jonathan
>
> Thanks
>
> Matthias
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/${ARCH}/boot/dts yields
> mostly ADC controller not channel nodes.
>
> I'm totally fine with changing the name to 'adc@...' if that's the
> preference/convention, just want to reconfirm since the actual use is
> a bit ambiguous.
Could we please reach a conclusion on this?
Summarizing the options on the table so far are:
1. usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID
2. usb-id-nopull@57
3. adc@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID
4. adc@57
My personal preference goes to something @
since the unit address doesn't just resolve to an ADC channel number
but also includes configuation information. A literal like '57'
conveys less information than the define, it's easier to introduce
errors and these errors are harder to spot.
If 'adc@...' really was the convention (or should be) I'd be clearly
in favor of following it. As mentioned above, in practice the use of
the 'adc@...' node name seems to be more prevalent for ADC controllers
than channels, so I'm more inclined towards 'usb-id-nopull@...' or
similar.
All that said, these are just my preferences for the reasons outlined
above, if DT maintainers really want it to be 'adc@57' or some
variation of that, I'm fine with that too. Please let me know and we
can move forward with this trivial series.
Thanks
Matthias
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:15:23AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > The node has a reg property, therefore its name should include a unit
> > > address.
> > >
> > > Also change the name from 'usb_id_nopull' to 'usb-id-nopull' to follow
> > > DT conventions.
> >
> > This is ADC channels? If so, then DT convention would really be
> > "adc@...".
>
> Is it really? A grep for 'adc@' in arch/${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 @
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
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
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/${ARCH}/boot/dts yields
mostly ADC controller not channel nodes.
I'm totally fine with changing the name to 'adc@...' if that's the
preference/convention, just want to reconfirm since the actual use is
a bit ambiguous.
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > The node has a reg property, therefore its name should include a unit
> > address.
> >
> > Also change the name from 'usb_id_nopull' to 'usb-id-nopull' to follow
> > DT conventions.
>
> This is ADC channels? If so, then DT convention would really be
> "adc@...".
Is it really? A grep for 'adc@' in arch/${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.
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:11:34PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> 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?
>
> yes
>
> > If so, then DT convention would really be "adc@...".
>
> ok, will update
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > - patch added to the series
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> > > io-channel-ranges;
> > >
> > > /* Channel node */
> > > - usb_id_nopull {
> > > + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> > > reg = ;
> >
> > Defines are generally used when there's not well defined numbering such
> > as clock ids. Interrupts and addresses are generally well defined and
> > don't need defines.
>
> ok, I'll update this to use literals
Actually I'm not convinced literals are the right answer here. It
makes perfect sense for a standard ADC, with a 1:1 mapping of channel
number and physical input. However in case of the VADC/ADC5 there
can be multiple channel numbers per input pin, the different values
are used to select a certain 'configuration' (eg. ADC5_BAT_THERM,
ADC5_BAT_THERM_30K_PU, ADC5_BAT_THERM_100K_PU,
ADC5_BAT_THERM_400K_PU). IMO using integer channel numbers here would
be more error prone and obfuscating than using the defines.
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:11:34PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> 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?
>
> yes
>
> > If so, then DT convention would really be "adc@...".
>
> ok, will update
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > - patch added to the series
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> > > io-channel-ranges;
> > >
> > > /* Channel node */
> > > - usb_id_nopull {
> > > + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> > > reg = ;
> >
> > Defines are generally used when there's not well defined numbering such
> > as clock ids. Interrupts and addresses are generally well defined and
> > don't need defines.
>
> ok, I'll update this to use literals
Actually I'm not convinced literals are the right answer here. It
makes perfect sense for a standard ADC, with a 1:1 mapping of channel
number and physical input. However in case of the VADC/ADC5 there
can be multiple channel numbers per input pin, the different values
are used to select a certain 'configuration' (eg. ADC5_BAT_THERM,
ADC5_BAT_THERM_30K_PU, ADC5_BAT_THERM_100K_PU,
ADC5_BAT_THERM_400K_PU). IMO using integer channel numbers here would
be more error prone and obfuscating than using the defines.
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
Hi Rob,
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?
yes
> If so, then DT convention would really be "adc@...".
ok, will update
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > - patch added to the series
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> > io-channel-ranges;
> >
> > /* Channel node */
> > - usb_id_nopull {
> > + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> > reg = ;
>
> Defines are generally used when there's not well defined numbering such
> as clock ids. Interrupts and addresses are generally well defined and
> don't need defines.
ok, I'll update this to use literals
Thanks for the review!
Matthias
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
Hi Rob,
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?
yes
> If so, then DT convention would really be "adc@...".
ok, will update
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > - patch added to the series
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> > io-channel-ranges;
> >
> > /* Channel node */
> > - usb_id_nopull {
> > + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> > reg = ;
>
> Defines are generally used when there's not well defined numbering such
> as clock ids. Interrupts and addresses are generally well defined and
> don't need defines.
ok, I'll update this to use literals
Thanks for the review!
Matthias
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
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@...".
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> ---
> Changes in v4:
> - patch added to the series
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> io-channel-ranges;
>
> /* Channel node */
> - usb_id_nopull {
> + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> reg = ;
Defines are generally used when there's not well defined numbering such
as clock ids. Interrupts and addresses are generally well defined and
don't need defines.
> qcom,decimation = <512>;
> qcom,ratiometric;
> --
> 2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
>
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
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@...".
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> ---
> Changes in v4:
> - patch added to the series
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> io-channel-ranges;
>
> /* Channel node */
> - usb_id_nopull {
> + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> reg = ;
Defines are generally used when there's not well defined numbering such
as clock ids. Interrupts and addresses are generally well defined and
don't need defines.
> qcom,decimation = <512>;
> qcom,ratiometric;
> --
> 2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
>
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:14 PM 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> ---
> Changes in v4:
> - patch added to the series
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> io-channel-ranges;
>
> /* Channel node */
> - usb_id_nopull {
> + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> reg = ;
This is my understanding of how it should be done and matches some
existing examples I see in the tree. AKA "pd_hdcp@RK3399_PD_HDCP".
Thanks for cleaning it up!
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson
Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:14 PM 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
> ---
> Changes in v4:
> - patch added to the series
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
> io-channel-ranges;
>
> /* Channel node */
> - usb_id_nopull {
> + usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
> reg = ;
This is my understanding of how it should be done and matches some
existing examples I see in the tree. AKA "pd_hdcp@RK3399_PD_HDCP".
Thanks for cleaning it up!
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson
[PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
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.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
---
Changes in v4:
- patch added to the series
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
io-channel-ranges;
/* Channel node */
- usb_id_nopull {
+ usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
reg = ;
qcom,decimation = <512>;
qcom,ratiometric;
--
2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
[PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: vadc: Update example to include unit address for node 'usb-id-nopull'
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.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke
---
Changes in v4:
- patch added to the series
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
index d0c188e5c922..ff7aa5038ba6 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.txt
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Example:
io-channel-ranges;
/* Channel node */
- usb_id_nopull {
+ usb-id-nopull@VADC_LR_MUX10_USB_ID {
reg = ;
qcom,decimation = <512>;
qcom,ratiometric;
--
2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
