On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 15:37:08 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:22:05 +0100 > Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 31/10/2020 18:48:37+0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This binding raises a few questions. > > > 1) Do we need #address-cells and #size-cells as the child nodes don't have > > > a reg property? A few dtsi files include these so if we drop the > > > requirement we will need to clean those up as well. > > > > You can drop them. > > > > > 2) Renamed to a specific part. Given we have another at91 ADC binding > > > it is clear now this won't cover all at91 parts so lets name it > > > after a specific part. > > > 3) For atmel,adc-res-names the description is a big vague. Are other > > > resolution names allowed? We don't seem to have any currently. > > > > > > > I had a look and this is a legacy mess, I'll send a fix soon. > > > > > There are a few things we would do differently in an ADC binding if we > > > were starting from scratch but we are stuck with what we have (which > > > made sense back when this was written!) > > > > > > We may be able to tighten up some elements of this binding in the future > > > by careful checking of what values properties can actually take. > > > > > > > Is there anything generic to select the resolution? I'll be happy to > > remove atmel,adc-res-names, atmel,adc-res and atmel,adc-use-res as there > > is no upstream users and the default is to use the highest resolution. > > Nothing currently defined. I'm not against it if we have users though. > > If it isn't actually useful in this case, even better to just drop it. > > Jonathan For reference in this thread, Alexandre has picked this on up as part of his series cleaning up related stuff in the driver and bindings. Thanks, Jonathan > > > > > > >
