On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 02:32:02PM +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote: > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Add bus property. RFC it may be, but you do need to explain what this bus-type actually describes for commenting on the suitability of the method to be meaningful. > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml > index a55e9bfc66d7..a7ce72e1cd81 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml > @@ -38,6 +38,15 @@ properties: > clocks: > maxItems: 1 You mentioned about new compatible strings, does the one currently listed in this binding support both bus types? Making the bus type decision based on compatible only really makes sense if they're different versions of the IP, but not if they're different configuration options for a given version. > + bus-type: If, as you mentioned, there are multiple bus types, a non-flag property does make sense. However, I am really not keen on these "forced" numerical properties at all, I'd much rather see strings used here. Thanks, Conor. > + maxItems: 1 > + description: | > + Configure bus type: > + - 0: none > + - 1: qspi > + enum: [0, 1] > + default: 0 > + > '#io-backend-cells': > const: 0 > > > -- > 2.45.0.rc1 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
