On 2016-11-29 11:10, Peter Rosin wrote: > +Example: > + mux: mux-controller { > + compatible = "mux-gpio"; > + #mux-control-cells = <0>; > + > + mux-gpios = <&pioA 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>, > + <&pioA 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > + }; > + > + adc-mux { > + compatible = "iio-mux"; > + io-channels = <&adc 0>; > + io-channel-names = "parent"; > + > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + > + mux-controls = <&mux>; > + > + sync@0 { > + reg = <0>; > + }; > + > + in@1 { > + reg = <1>; > + }; > + > + system-regulator@2 { > + reg = <2>; > + }; > + }; Hmmm, a more compact binding would be to just use an array of strings instead of a list of children for the mux channels, and use the array index as channel number, like so: adc-mux { compatible = "iio-mux"; io-channels = <&adc 0>; io-channel-names = "parent"; mux-controls = <&mux>; channels = "sync", "in", "system-regulator"; }; If you need to skip a low-number channel, you'd just put an empty string for that channel. If you need to skip channels at the end, just stop short. Can anyone think of any reason to add anything to the channel nodes that makes the string-array ineffective? If so, or if that comes up later, it could be optional and in that case you could look for the channels property first and then, if not present, iterate over child nodes. Opinions? I like it, it's a lot more compact... Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html