On Fri, 10 May 2024 22:26:22 +0100 Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:21:37AM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > > On 5/10/24 5:05 AM, Alisa-Dariana Roman wrote: > > > On 30.04.2024 20:21, Conor Dooley wrote: > > >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 07:29:45PM +0300, Alisa-Dariana Roman wrote: > > >>> + diff-channels: > > >>> + description: > > >>> + Both inputs can be connected to pins AIN1 to AIN16 by choosing the > > >>> + appropriate value from 1 to 16. > > >>> + items: > > >>> + minimum: 1 > > >>> + maximum: 16 > > >>> + > > >>> + single-channel: > > >>> + description: > > >>> + Positive input can be connected to pins AIN1 to AIN16 by choosing the > > >>> + appropriate value from 1 to 16. Negative input is connected to AINCOM. > > >>> + items: > > >>> + minimum: 1 > > >>> + maximum: 16 > > >> > > >> Up to 16 differential channels and 16 single-ended channels, but only 16 > > >> pins? Would the number of differential channels not max out at 8? > > > > > > Hello, Conor! I really appreciate the feedback! > > > > > > The way I thought about it, the only thing constraining the number of channels is the reg number (minimum: 0, maximum: 271). 272 channels cover all possible combinations (16*16 differential and 16 single ended) and I thought there is no need for anything stricter. I added items: minimum:1 maximum:16 to make sure the numbers are from 1 to 16, corresponding to AIN1-AIN16. > > > > > > Please let me know what should be improved! > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Alisa-Dariana Roman. > > > > > > > Having looked at the datasheet for this and other similar chips, I agree > > that this reasoning makes sense. Some of the similar chips that have fixed > > channel assignments still have, e.g. a channel where + and - are both > > AIN2 (I assume for diagnostics). So I think it makes sense to allow for > > doing something similar here even if the most common use cases will > > probably have at most 16 channels defined in the .dts. > > Actually, I think there were a bunch of whiffs on this one by either > misreading the property in question (me) or not realising that I had done > that and trying to explain what the possible combinations are. > Looking at it now, I dunno wtf I was smoking because there's no way that > this would be a functional binding if the min/max in the quote above > constraining the number of channels. I can hardly blame y'all for that > though, I am supposed to know how bindings work after all... Me too :( I also failed to register this doesn't constrain channel counts at all. Anyhow, all's well that ends well! J
