On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:07:34 +0100 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-12-21 at 17:25 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:34:05 +0100 > > Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 'adi,adc-dev' is now deprecated and must not be used anymore. Hence, > > > also remove it from being required. > > > > With my 'specifications language' brain engaged (also know as pedantic) > > I think this is a 'should' not a 'must' case. You aren't breaking > > backwards compatibility just advising moving to the newer / better interface. > > > > Well, you surely know better than me as a native speaker :) > > > > > > > > > The reason why it's being deprecated is because the axi-adc CORE is now > > > an IIO service provider hardware (IIO backends) for consumers to make use > > > of. Before, the logic with 'adi,adc-dev' was the opposite (it was kind > > > of consumer referencing other nodes/devices) and that proved to be wrong > > > and to not scale. > > > > > > Now, IIO consumers of this hardware are expected to reference it using the > > > io-backends property. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml | 4 +--- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml > > > index 9996dd93f84b..835b40063343 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml > > > @@ -39,12 +39,12 @@ properties: > > > $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle > > > description: > > > A reference to a the actual ADC to which this FPGA ADC interfaces to. > > > + deprecated: true > > > > > > required: > > > - compatible > > > - dmas > > > - reg > > > - - adi,adc-dev > > > > Dropping it from required is fine, but do we have a new condition where one or the > > other > > should be required? If so good to add the dt-binding magic to enforce that. Look > > for a oneOf combined with required. There are a few IIO examples of this either or > > type required. You may want to then enforce that both are not provided though I > > guess we perhaps don't care - the driver will just prioritise one approach over the > > other. > > > > Hmm, the thing is that io-backends is applied in the frontend device (so other > binding) and in here we should only have the adi,adc-dev which is now deprecated so > I'm not sure how that would look like? Ah. I'd somehow failed to register the property is now in the other device. Not much we can do then :( > > I think new users of the deprecated property are very unlikely unless they choose to > ignore the deprecated warning. As for old users (if they add the new one and don't > remove this one, the new one will have priority). But I'm still confident there are > no users of this out there :( Sometimes it's easier to cater for non existent users than get into too much debate on whether they exist :) Jonathan > > > - Nuno Sá > >
