On Sun, 2023-09-24 at 05:02 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 02:19:45PM +0000, Miclaus, Antoniu wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 05:20:03PM +0300, Antoniu Miclaus wrote: > > > > The actual hardware pin name for the supply of max31827 is vdd. > > > > Update the dt-binding to reflect the hardware properties accordingly. > > > > > > Changing this breaks the ABI. I see the old one wasn't used by the > > > driver, but that's just one driver potentially. You need some > > > justification here why it's okay to break the ABI. > > > > > As I mentioned also in the commit description, the supply should match the > > actual hardware pin name. Otherwise it might create confusion. Usually vref > > refers to an external voltage reference pin used for ADC/DACs which is not > > exactly the case for this part, taking into account that there is no "reference" > > word mentioned in the datasheet at all. VREF and VDD are usually separate > > hardware pins. There is a hint indeed in the dts example that the vref-supply > > might be referenced to a vdd regulator node, but from my point of view > > that is not enough. Moreover the current vref-supply is not handled at all in > > the driver, it is only mentioned in the dt-binding (That's why I added a second > > patch in the series handling the supply). > > > > If the justification is not enough to apply this change, then I can keep only the > > second patch, which handles the regulator in the driver and use the old `vref` > > naming which currently appears only in the dt-binding. > > > > That would have been a good argument when the property was introduced, but if > there are any systems with existing bindings out there they will use the old > name and fail after this change is applied. > How about introducing the new property and add 'deprecated: true' to the old one. I guess the second patch would still remain as-is. Or is this just not worth the noise? - Nuno Sá
