On Mon, 13 May 2024 09:19:06 -0500 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 04:04:38PM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > > It is always recommended to use generic node names for devicetree nodes. > > The documentation [1] of the AXI ADC IP core says "The most important > > part of the core is the Receiver PHY module.", so using phy as the node > > name seems appropriate. > > > > [1]: https://wiki.analog.com/resources/fpga/docs/axi_adc_ip > > > > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml > > index e1f450b80db2..9cad4c439045 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/adi,axi-adc.yaml > > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ additionalProperties: false > > > > examples: > > - | > > - axi-adc@44a00000 { > > + phy@44a00000 { > > phy should be used when there's #phy-cells which is not the case here. > 'adc' is somewhat standard. Or maybe it should be tied to > #io-backend-cells. > > Until we have something defined as ti what it should be, we should just > leave node names alone. > > Rob > Unapplied.
