On 10/12/2022 17:54, Marijn Suijten wrote: > On 2022-12-10 12:02:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 09/12/2022 22:53, Marijn Suijten wrote: >>> As discussed in [1] the DT should use labels to describe ADC >>> channels, with generic node names, since the IIO drivers now >>> moved to the fwnode API where node names include the `@xx` >>> address suffix. >>> >>> Especially for the ADC5 driver that uses extend_name - which >>> cannot be removed for compatibility reasons - this results in >>> sysfs files with the @xx name that wasn't previously present, and >>> leads to an unpleasant file-browsing experience. >>> >>> Also remove all the unused channel labels in pm660.dtsi. >>> >>> [1]: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221106193018.270106-1-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u >>> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> The talk was in context of bindings, not about changing all >> existing users thus affecting DTS. > > And as a consequence, DTS. The already-merged transition from OF to > fwnode resulted in `@xx` to be included in the ADC channel name - and > in the case of ADC5 even in sysfs filenames - so this seems like a > necessary change to make. > > At the very least I would have changed the bindings submitted or > co-authored /by myself/ since I initially decided to rely on this > (now obviously) wrong behaviour, and should have used labels from the > get go. > >> What's more, to me "skin-temp-thermistor" is quite generic name, >> maybe "thermistor" would be more and reflects the purpose of the >> node, so it was more or less fine. > > Are you suggesting to not use "adc-chan", but "thermistor" as node > name (and still use skin_temp as label)? No, I am just saying that some of the names were correct, so the reasoning in commit msg is not entirely accurate. > Or to keep the fully-written-out "thermistor" word in the label? No, I don't refer to labels. Labels don't matter, they are being removed entirely during DTS build. > >> Anyway I am against such changes without expressing it in the >> bindings. > > As expressed in [1] I suggested and am all for locking this change > in via bindings, and you are right to expect that to have gone paired > with this patch. Yes, I expect such changes to have both binding and DTS change together. > > I'll submit that as the leading patch to this in v2, with the > wildcard pattern changed to adc-chan (or something else pending the > discussion above), and should I then also require the label property > via `label: true`? I don't think label is required. Best regards, Krzysztof
