On 2023-04-12 21:27:56, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 22:29:17 +0200 > Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > As discussed in [1] it is more convenient to use a generic `channel` > > node name for ADC channels while storing a friendly - board-specific > > instead of PMIC-specific - name in the label, if/when desired to > > overwrite the channel description already contained (but previously > > unused) in the driver [2]. > > > > The same `channel` node name pattern has also been set in > > iio/adc/adc.yaml, but this generic binding is not inherited as base for > > qcom,spmi-vadc bindings due to not having any other generic elements in > > common, besides the node name rule and reg property. > > > > Replace the .* name pattern with the `channel` literal, but leave the > > label property optional for bindings to choose to fall back a channel > > label hardcoded in the driver [2] instead. > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221106193018.270106-1-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230116220909.196926-4-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > There are various ways we could pick up this patch set... > a) Binding changes via individual subsystem trees, > b) All in on go. > > I think it's late to guarantee to land the changes from (a) in the coming merge window > so if someone else is willing to do (b) then > > Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Otherwise we can do (a) early in next cycle. Feel free to poke me if we are doing (b) > and I seem to have forgotten to pick up this patch! Thanks! I hope we don't get many conflicts (+ new bindings adhering to the old(er) formats) otherwise I'll resend if we do (a). Around what time would be good, rc2? [..] - Marijn
