On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:40:58PM +0200, Olivier MOYSAN wrote: > Hi Conor, > > On 6/25/24 17:34, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 05:07:13PM +0200, Olivier Moysan wrote: > > > Add documentation of device tree bindings to support > > > sigma delta modulator backend in IIO framework. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I don't review bindings for a job, I can only reliably get to look at > > my mail queue in the evenings, please give me a chance to reply to you > > before you submit a new version. > > > > Sorry, the short review delay. > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/iio/adc/sd-modulator-backend.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Sigma delta modulator backend > > > > Same comments about filename and title apply here as the previous > > version. "TI $foo Sigma Delta Modulator" and drop the reference to back > > ends or the pretence of being generic. > > > > The logic here is the same as for the former sigma delta modulator driver. > (see discussion [1]) > I mean introducing a generic and minimalist driver to support sd modulators, > but not dedicated to a specific modulator. The ads1201 is chosen as a basic > modulator here. But it is rather an arbitrary choice. > > I agree "backend" reference is not really relevant here. I have to think > about a way to manage the coexistence of this sigma delta modulator driver > with its former version. To be blunt, I don't care about drivers! Well I do, but not in this particular context. You can absolutely have a driver that supports multiple backends or sigma delta modulators, but right now we are talking about a binding and this binding supports exactly one sigma delta modulator - and with an explicit compatible. In that context, presenting the binding as generic makes little sense. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/6943aaf5-b580-0fd1-7a2e-b99f7a266388@xxxxxx/ Looking at this though, I question the binding more... The programming model of the device is identical as a backend or otherwise, so it shouldn't be getting a new compatible. Isn't this actually as simple as adding #io-backend-cells to the existing binding and using that to determine whether the device is being used as a backend or in isolation? Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
