On 06/09/2024 16:04, David Lechner wrote: > On 9/6/24 8:52 AM, Nuno Sá wrote: >> On Fri, 2024-09-06 at 14:13 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 06/09/2024 13:53, Nuno Sá wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2024-09-06 at 11:37 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 06/09/2024 11:11, Angelo Dureghello wrote: >>>>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06/09/24 9:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 05:17:35PM +0200, Angelo Dureghello wrote: >>>>>>>> From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Add a new compatible for the ad3552r variant of the generic DAC IP. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ad3552r DAC IP variant is very similar to the generic DAC IP, >>>>>>>> register map is the same, but some register fields are specific to >>>>>>>> this IP, and also, a DDR QSPI bus has been included in the IP. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml | 1 + >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml >>>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml >>>>>>>> index a55e9bfc66d7..c0cccb7a99a4 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml >>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,axi-dac.yaml >>>>>>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ properties: >>>>>>>> compatible: >>>>>>>> enum: >>>>>>>> - adi,axi-dac-9.1.b >>>>>>>> + - adi,axi-dac-ad3552r >>>>>>> I am sorry, but what is the product here? It looks like either wrong >>>>>>> order or even completely redundant. What is ad3552r? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And why versions are mixed with real products but without any >>>>>>> compatibility. What does the version express in such case? >>>>>> >>>>>> dac-ad3552r IP (fpga) is a variant of the dac IP, very similar, >>>>>> about the version, it still reads as 9.1.b >>>>>> >>>>>> so i can eventually change it to: >>>>>> >>>>>> adi,axi-dac-ad3552-9.1.b >>>>>> >>>>>> Should be more correct. >>>>> >>>>> No. First ad3552r is the product, so axi-dac is redundant. Second why >>>>> adding versions if you have product names? Versioning was allowed >>>>> because apparently that's how these are called, but now it turns out it >>>>> is not version but names. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Let me try to explain on how this whole thing works... >>>> >>>> We have a generic FPGA IP called axi-dac (same story is true for the other axi- >>>> adc >>>> IP) which adds some basic and generic capabilities like DDS (Direct digital >>>> synthesis) and the generic one is the compatible existing now. This IP is a so >>>> called >>>> IIO backend because it then connects to a real converter (in this case DACs) >>>> extending it's capabilities and also serving as an interface between another >>>> block >>>> (typical DMA as this is used for really high speed stuff) and the device. Now, >>>> depending on the actual device, we may need to add/modify some features of the IP >>>> and >>>> this is what's happening for the ad3552r DAC (it's still build on top of the >>> >>> What is "ad3552"? DAC right? Then as I said axi-dac is redundant. We do >>> not call ti,tmp451 a ti,sensor-tmp451, right? >>> >> >> Yes, I agree the DAC part is redundant. But I think the axi prefix (or suffix) is >> meaningful to differentiate it from the bindings for the device itself. >> > The binding is for this [1] IP core. The documentation calls the core > "AXI AD3552R", so I agree that "adi,axi-ad2552r" is the most sensible > compatible name. > > http://analogdevicesinc.github.io/hdl/library/axi_ad3552r/index.html I don't see any AXI here: https://www.analog.com/en/products/ad3552r.html Neither here: https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ad3552r.pdf Are these different? Best regards, Krzysztof
