Hi Lars,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 05:45 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 16.3.2017 17:39, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 8.3.2017 21:11, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Fix
>>>>>
>>>>> OF: /iio_hwmon: could not get #io-channel-cells for
>>>>> /amba/adc@f8007100
>>>>> OF: /iio_hwmon: could not get #io-channel-cells for
>>>>> /amba/adc@f8007100
>>>>> OF: /iio_hwmon: could not get #io-channel-cells for
>>>>> /amba/adc@f8007100
>>>>>
>>>>> by adding the #io-channel-cells property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Julia Cartwright <julia@xxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes from v1:
>>>>> - fix messed up commit message
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 1 +
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
>>>>> index f3ac9bf..98233a8 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@
>>>>> interrupts = <0 7 4>;
>>>>> interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>>>>> clocks = <&clkc 12>;
>>>>> + #io-channel-cells = <1>;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> can0: can@e0008000 {
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it will be good to the next step too.
>>>> It means also add iio-hwmon node too.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> I hadn't put it in there since dts is supposed to describe hw,
>>> but obviously putting the actual hwmon in there makes it more useful.
>>
>> I had one discussion about this with Grant in past and it is common
>> mistake. It is simplification of purpose of dts.
>>
>
> If the iio-hwmon binding had gone through review it would have been rejected.
>
>>>
>>> I can resubmit with the hwmon node in there.
>>
>> If you grep kernel tree you will see that others are using it too.
>> Also there is accepted binding for that that's why I can't see big
>> problem with it.
>
> Since this is an application specific binding I wouldn't put it in the
> generic DT include file. It's a bit like adding a gpio-key binding for each
> of the GPIOs just in case somebody wants to use it.
So is your suggestion to move the whole thing from .dtsi -> .dts?
Thanks,
Moritz
--
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
