Hi, On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:35:27 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 16/08/2023 22:26, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > Document TI TWL603X GPADC devicetree bindings. > > A driver is already there, the compatibles are used, but not documented. > > Use two separate files to reference only the allowed compatible in > > a future YAML version of > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/twl-family.txt > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve. > > > > .../bindings/iio/adc/ti,twl6030-gpadc.yaml | 42 +++++++++++++++++++ > > .../bindings/iio/adc/ti,twl6032-gpadc.yaml | 42 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 84 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,twl6030-gpadc.yaml > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,twl6032-gpadc.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,twl6030-gpadc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,twl6030-gpadc.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..08bc0468f616 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/ti,twl6030-gpadc.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/adc/ti,twl6030-gpadc.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: GPADC subsystem in the TWL6030 power module > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This should be rather someone knowing or having or caring about this > particular hardware, not subsystem maintainer. > Hmm, I have the twl6032, but not the twl6030. So probably Tony (OMAP-Maintainer) or me? > > + > > +description: > > + The GPADC subsystem in the TWL6030 consists of a 10-bit ADC > > + combined with a 15-input analog multiplexer. > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + const: ti,twl6030-gpadc > > Devices look fairly similar. Same properties. Why aren't they in one > binding (enum here instead)? > I hope it can be done. See commit message. Maybe my reasoning is wrong. So what I am thinking about: &i2c { twl: pmic@48 { compatible = "ti,twl6032; adc { compatible = "ti,twl6032-gpadc"; } } } So the idea was to later enforce that below a "ti,twl6032" no "ti,twl6030-gpadc" is allowed in a future yaml version of mfd/twl-family.txt by using a if: ... compatible = "twl,6032" .. $ref ti,twl6032-gpadc.yaml If there are other possibilities or that can be just ignored for now, I fully agree to your proposal. Regards, Andreas
